This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 19:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 has been released!

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2007/12/18/episode-39-knol-pointer/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.

Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, D B D 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just re(-re-re)-deleted User_talk:Smbarnzy and was wondering - why do you choose to have it deleted rather than kept as a redirect? Just curious. — Random832 20:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the user who requested deletion, and Majorly apparently decided to honor the request. From the deletion log, it appears he wasn't the first admin to do so. Incidentally, the deletion summary is misleading, because it just picked up and copied the user's "db" reason; that doesn't mean this was Majorly's account. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you alive? John Reaves 09:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

To assauge any worries you may have, should you truly be concerned for Alex's life, I can assert that he is alive. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 11:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

less than a minute is kind of revealing. are you a robot?

Nope. Majorly ( talk) 21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yer the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.11.5 ( talk) 01:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

im very curious, how you could come to the conclusion that me adding that Jesse Helms was a symbol of Bigotry was vandalism. He was a major symbol of Bigotry in the 1950's and 1960's and worked extremely hard against basic Civil rights of African- Americans during this time... read wikipedia article and it already states this... It is very important that people know the truth not half-truths.

This is an exerpt of Jesse Helms wiki page. "Soon after the Senate vote on the Confederate flag insignia, Sen. Jesse Helms (R.-N.C.) ran into Mosely-Braun in a Capitol elevator. Helms turned to his friend, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah), and said, "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." He then proceeded to sing the song about the good life during slavery to Mosely-Braun (Gannett News Service, 9/2/93; Time, 8/16/93).[5] "

That my friend... are the words and actions of a Bigot... If you are in support of actions and statements such as these...then you too are a Bigot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 ( talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sincerly

Alvin Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.232.153.118 ( talk) 19:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Majorly. Did you check this IPs other edits before you posted this warning? From what I can discern what you reverted was an accidental typo when he was adding information to the article, but I may be mistaken because I'm not familiar with the cartoon. It might be a good idea for you to use the {{ uw-vandalism1}} template first before accusing people of vandalism. Remember, never attribute to malice would could be explained by incompetence! Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Looked like weird vandalism to me. I think the article is better without a hideous typo like that. Perhaps read up what "biting" actually is too. Thanks! Majorly ( talk) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

At first blush the edit you reverted does look like that, especially to someone like me who doesn't know the first thing about that cartoon. However, looking at his edit history the pattern seems to be one of legitimate edits, as far as I can tell. I really think you might consider retracting the vandalism note on his talk page, especially since he hasn't edited since you posted it. Cheers! — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much for fixing the vandalism to my user page by 99.245.163.168 - you are very fast! - Ahunt ( talk) 22:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Majorly ( talk) 22:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that wikipedia sets up no ability to discuss articles? Talk function is limited and not set up for most pages. Ahunt has no real authority on the subject but, as usual, wiki says editors can distort or delete facts at will. The credibility of wiki has suffered because of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.163.168 ( talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You idiot! you can only delete sb's others work and a pussy!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.107.45 ( talk) 12:26, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

A dissenting opinion is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.17.51 ( talk) 15:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

STOP YOUR VANDALISM OF REFERENCED MATERIAL ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PAGES OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.241.46.108 ( talk) 19:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

When a faceless majority decides truth, the whole concept becomes relative. Whats wild is I can go through your site and alter names and statistics and its rarely found, unless I do something crazy like the vanilla incident. All you can do is block my IP, thats not tough to change...

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot ( talk) 13:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference your message left regarding Deva Victrix my changes where very constructive, as per WPspam "External links to other sites for promotional gain" therefore I removed them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.239.238 ( talk) 16:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A government website isn't promotion spam. Majorly ( talk) 16:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

A government website in itself is not spam, but the services that are advertised within a government website if profit is made from such an advertised service is then PROMOTIONAL. Therefore the external links are to promote a product/service that a local council (not government) make profit from. If you believe the links should be added, then please use the discussion as links should when they are being added not upon deletion.

There is nothing promotional on those sites. They compliment the article well. Majorly ( talk) 16:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The links are of a commercial nature, the Cheshire County council makes profit from the service, therefore it is promotional, please stop adding promotional links to wikipedia articles, if you wish the links to remain then please start a discussion regarding them. until it is decided via a discussion or mediator the links should and will be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.239.238 ( talk) 16:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing legitimate links, and being disruptive. Thanks. Majorly ( talk) 17:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The edit-warring indulged in by the IP editor may well be done in good faith, but they are deeply misguided, as Majorly as commented. I have now converted the ELs into full-blown references in appropriate places, and they are quite legitimate as references. I would be happy if the amount of work done to carry on removing these links were better directed to supplying more references so that the templates at the head of the article could be removed. As it is, this article is, and remians, one of the poorer ones on wikipedia, and an embarrassment to the projects that claim an interest in it.  DDStretch   (talk) 17:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to echo the comments made by Majorly, particularly with respect to the comments just made on my own talk page about the edits by the same anon IP user. Already, it is close to becoming a WP:3rr situation.  DDStretch   (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

That will not work. The arbcom case could last for weeks, if the mfd is left open people will still keep !voting and the drama will increase. Please close it - you can start a new one after the arbitration if you like.-- Doc^g 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Mfd will cause more crap, with no chance of a consensus outcome at the moment.-- Doc^g 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was unaware of the ArbCom case. Add the headers back if you like. Majorly ( talk) 00:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I'm too involved to risk the drama of seeming to edit war here. Best if you do it as nom, or we let someone else.-- Doc^g 00:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you added them in the first place... *sigh* :) Majorly ( talk) 00:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

		The AFD Barnstar
		Throughout your tenure as an administrator, you have served the community heavily at WP:XfD. This award is long overdue, but that's only because it was only recently invented. Maser ( Talk!) 02:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed you editing again. Nice to see you back, Majorly. :) Acalamari 17:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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. WjB scribe 16:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

You reverted the changes I made to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Go_Through_This under the anonymous account ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)

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

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

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)

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

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