User talk:Majorly

Archives

1 • 2 • 3 • 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 • 8 • 9 • 10 • 11 • 12 • 13 • 14 • 15 • 16 • 17 • 18 • 19 • 20 • 21 • 22 • 23 • 24 • 25 • 26 • 27 • 28 • 29 • 30 • 31 • 32 • 33 • 34 • 35 • 36 • 37 • 38 • 39 • 40 • 41 • 42 • 43 • 44 • 45 • 46 • 47 • 48 • 49 • 50 • 51 • 52 • 53 • 54 • 55 • 56 • 57 • 58 • 59 • 60 • 61 • 62 • 63 • 64 • 65 • 66 • 67 • 68 • 69 • 70

All

Dawat e Islami Page

i removed a gramatically incorrect and barely conherent sentence which was obviously propoganda and did not cite its sources. how can you claim it wasn't constructive? we, the representatives of the organisation, have been meaning to post an article referenced to third party sources and are in the process of compiling such an article, but it seems that wikipedia is not the right place for this. as your editorial policy seems to be justifying the spread of misinformation, should i suggest to the members of dawat e islami (numbering over 20 million world wide) that they should undertake a pro-active boycott against wikipedia - spamming your pages and servers?

given that Dawat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.192.44 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

F L^{Happy Holidays!} is wishing you a Happy Holidays! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing a Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

why?

I needed the picture of this author so I asked why ?

Removing "JAUCOURT_Louisdejaucourt.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Majorly because: Image missing essential information for more than 7 days.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.123.101 (talk) 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted because no information was added to it. Please direct commons problems to my commons talk page. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikipedia

Hey Majorly, have you decided to stop contributing at the Simple English Wikipedia? If you have, please be aware that your account is still a sysop. Are you planning on coming back and editing it anytime soon? Razorflame (talk) 21:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't decided anything, no. And why should I be aware? No, I don't intend to edit it anytime soon. Majorly (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if you are planning to come back to the Simple English Wikipedia. If you aren't, then never mind this message. Razorflame (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing comments

Would you consider undoing this? I would appreciate it since it seems a bit (unusually) immature of you and definitely unhelpful, as opposed to your oppose rationale. I dorftrottel I talk I 02:57, December 30, 2007

I removed it because people were getting upset and silly about it. Why should it stay anyway? I supported him. Majorly (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example because I opposed "per Majorly"? And your "support" is not genuine. I dorfbaer I talk I 04:29, December 30, 2007

Fine, you can restore it. Seriously though, you should think of your own rationale. You don't realise how guilty I feel when I inadvertently ruin an RFA. Majorly (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I added there, rspeer's rationale from the last RfA still holds. And although your integrity is commendable as always, you certainly didn't ruin the RfA. The IRC/GAR issue (cited as "Bishonen's evidence") seems to turn off even more people. OTOH, that should make a nice rule: everyone has to present a new and different rationale, so that consensus and not numbers rule the whole process. The current situation whereas numbers inofficially determine the outcome stinks to the high heavens because it's gameable as hell. Oh well. I dorfbaer I talk I 14:21, December 30, 2007

WP:FORMER

Hi,

Regarding your recent edit, my reply in the summary is --

"You may think not, but you are incorrect -- Ref 2 implies Ref. 1. I have discussed this with b'cat WJBscribe."

When you requested a reconfirmation RfA, that stipulated your willingness to accept its judgment. When a b'crat allowed the RfA forward, that implied that contoversial circumstances existed. When it was closed as failing, that absolutely stipulated controversial circumstances. B'crat WJBscribe concurred in this reasoning when I added the tag to you. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I closed it as passing, actually. 2 bureaucrats have stated they'll promote me without an RFA, so that's how it is. Majorly (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have a very weird disagreement among b'crats -- who are those two b'crats? RfAs withdrawn before the deadline are not capable of passing, and no one may close their own RfA with any result but failure. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 and Deskana. Majorly (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is very odd. I'm sure the discussion, should you ever actually ask for the bit, will be very interesting. In the meantime, a b'crat has stipulated that Ref. 1 should be added, so I maintain the appropriateness of the tag. I have, however, much better things to do than to revert-war over it. If you are so confident in your position, why does the tag bother you, anyway? Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers me that it was added by you, and that it's patently false. ArbCom have nothing to do with my resigning. If my RFA had continued, it would have probably passed, even with the wild accusations being thrown around by an abusive checkuser. Raul654 stated he considered the RFA void, and would promote me should I want it, and Deskana said things to the same effect. I don't know what WJBscribe has said, but he admitted on his RFB that he was too involved to make any decision (due to the fact he and I have met outside Wikipedia, and he was one trying to insist to Gmaxwell that I couldn't possibly be Matthew, as Matthew edited while WJB was with me all evening.) Apparently Cecropia and Secretlondon take different positions. But a future RFA, to me is a complete waste of time. In fact, to try and end this, I'll ask for my bit back right now. Majorly (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this will clarify the situation. Of course, the tag was not patently false -- I wouldn't have added it if it were so. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see my name has been mentioned so I'll add a brief note here. I did agree with Xoloz that ref 2 implies ref 1 - that doesn't meant they will always occur. Personally I think Raul654 is correct that is a special case where the RfA should be considered a nulity rather than a withdrawn attempt. I've added my take on the situation to WP:BN but I am I think too involved (and bound by the answer to Majorly's question on my RfB) not to take bureaucrat action on the issue. WjBscribe 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Majorly, edit warring at the same time you are requesting to be promoted to admin can't possibly help your case [1]. Personally, I feel you have never completely explained how you managed to share an IP with Matthew. You are, of course, free not to do so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in great detail. I used a special server that he owns, which enables high speed editing - for repetitive tedious edits, so it wouldn't grind my own connection to a halt. While it may be wrong to edit war, the comments saying that ArbCom have anything to do with my case is even more wrong, and it shouldn't be there. Majorly (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leighton Andrews article

Darren Wyn Rees's edits and reversions (below) appear to be in breach of both Wikipedia's rules and the UK libel laws. First he has inserted material which challenges the subject's sincerity in supporting the Burberry workers. That suggests defamation - and malicious defamation at that. Second, he is clearly using the article to make a personal attack on the subect. Third, he is removing valid source references from respected sources, eg the BBC, and replacing them with a source from an obscure blog. Looking at both the blog and Darren Wyn Rees's page on Wikipedia, he is either the the blogger - whom he sought to quote on this article - or closely allied to him/her. If he is the blogger, then replacing legitimate sourced references to cite a quote from his own blog is, to say the least, narcissistic. It is certainly not objective Penpych (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Penpych (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help reverting this article. It's been the subject of anonymous vandalistic edits on many occasions. I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth carrying on editing the article. Thanks. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's worth carrying on! :) If the vandalism is a problem, consider requesting protection at requests for page protection. Cheers, Majorly (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't yet have the technical skills to revert the article, due to multiple recent reversions. Thanks for the suggestion regarding page protection request. --Darren Wyn Rees (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Go through this' reversal

You reverted the changes I made to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Through_This under the anonymous account ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Go_Through_This&diff=180337999&oldid=180337937 ). The article contained factual errors, I simply corrected it, please revert my changes back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vluchits (talk • contribs) 23:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that :( All fixed. Majorly (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks :) Vluchits (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Evil Records

221.114.141.220 was proposing User:Evil Records for deletion because the userpage plainly is spam — it's not at all what a userpage is supposed to be. Would you mind if I delete it, as it should be? I'm not going to without your permission, since you removed the speedy tag. If not, it's going to XFD. Nyttend (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be moved to article space then. Majorly (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, a pity I didn't think of that. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sysop bit restored

I've restored your sysop bit, per your request and my comment here Raul654 (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Majorly (talk) 22:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Happy to have you back. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to you and also to Raul for doing that. Welcome back. --John (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Needless to say I strongly agree you should have the bit back, but the wider implications of asking for it at BN are less than ideal (I guess that's also why Walton opposed it). I dorfbaer I talk I 10:33, January 1, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you with your bit back! 24.68.242.27 (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Majorly

Congratulations on being re-sysopped, Majorly. I'm am very glad you are an admin again. :) Rest assured that had you had to re-run through RfA, I would have very strongly supported you. Regards. Acalamari 04:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabal wishes you a Happy New Year. Welcome back. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats. Considering there was no way you could pass another RfA, I applaud you for saving time by going through the bureaucratic system. It save us all (pretty much just you) some embarrassment. the_undertow ^talk 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How I love sarcasm. :) Happy new year, and congrats on being the last admin of 2K7. · AndonicO ^Talk 12:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]