User talk:Majorly/Archives/39
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majorly. 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. |
Deletion of Talk:El Señor Presidente
I note that you deleted Talk:El Señor Presidente. I recognize that this was an orphaned talk page, but it also made clear that it was part of an educational assignment, with a link to the project in question. The page was to have been created shortly. I'd have been grateful had you taken a minute, and perhaps been in touch with me, before going ahead with this deletion.--jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please create the article before the talk page. Majorly (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read what I said? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We don't create talk pages then the article. It's the other way around. Majorly (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can see from reading your talk page that discussion doesn't go far with you. Again, it would be nice were you to think about what you were doing, and polite were you to get in touch with the people affected. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CSD#G8. It's supposed to be deleted. Majorly (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I can see from reading your talk page that discussion doesn't go far with you. Again, it would be nice were you to think about what you were doing, and polite were you to get in touch with the people affected. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We don't create talk pages then the article. It's the other way around. Majorly (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read what I said? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of Talk:I the Supreme
I further note that you deleted Talk:I the Surpeme. I recognize that again this was an orphaned talk page, but once more it also made clear that it was part of an educational assignment, with a link to the project in question. The page is to be created shortly. I'd have been grateful had you taken a minute, and perhaps been in touch with me, before going ahead with this deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please create the article before the talk page. Majorly (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, did you read what I said? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. We don't create talk pages then the article. It's the other way around. Majorly (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, did you read what I said? --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Join us?
Hello Majorly,
I spotted that you live in Manchester and wondered if you was aware, and have considered joining us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester? It would be great to have you on board! -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I rarely edit Manchester related articles - and when I do my work is attacked by GMR project editors on the talk page. Sorry, but I'd rather not. Majorly (talk) 18:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
DDR Extreme?
Could you please restore the talk page on Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME? It was speedy deleted with a good-faith G11 although it was not promotional at all. ViperSnake151 00:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 08:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For you...
I would like to thank you especially for your efforts in the earlier struggle today. I appreciate your support, and I'd extend my faith if it were ever to happen to you, god forbid. With kindest regards, Rudget. 20:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
My RfA
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for the support and I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
- [Continuing /Archives/38#CSD .2F orphan talk pages]
I remember a comment just like the one that is there now being on that page or a similar one. The log shows that you deleted the page, but there is no restore entry in the log. Did you (or someone else) restore the page Image talk:100 0326.jpg or is it newly (re?)created?
Overall, regarding talk pages like that one, I believe that while they may not be totally encyclopedic, they are harmless, can provide interesting tidbits and should probably be left alone. In addition, ILIKEREADINGTHEM. Lastly, regarding Image talk:100 0326.jpg, I'd like to note that my computer networking education agrees with the comment that is there--the gray cable sheath should really end inside the clear plastic plug. --Jason McHuff (talk) 07:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's newly created. Majorly (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Heya Majorly, hope you're well. Would you be opposed to the unprotection of the above page, which you fully-protected on Jan. 17? It's in response to an outstanding WP:RFPP request. Cheers, Anthøny 21:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be opposed. Looks like Steel dealt with it. Regards, Majorly (talk) 23:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleted image question
I noticed that you deleted the Image talk:Laurel McGoff (Kid Nation) SC.jpg page as it was orphaned. I wanted to ask if I could get a userfied copy of what was on the page as some of the comments (and their format!) were useful for reference. Thanks in advance! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC) :-)
_SC.jpg){kind=link}
- I simply restored it, Majorly (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thx
| |
Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 60/0/0 yesterday!
I want to thank Mrs.EasterBunny and Royalbroil for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. To paraphrase a president ... I wish my mum and dad could see the comments made. My dad would be so proud to see the comments ... and my mum would have believed them". I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and you may be surprised to find that I have not deleted all of the pages by accident..... yet). Thanks again, Victuallers (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
 |
|---|
Mass image deletions
Can I just ask... Why are you deleting 350+ images, out of process, at a rate of 30 per minute, with the summary "(user request)"? — Edokter • Talk • 22:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The uploader requested them to be deleted. They are fair use, and he no longer wishes to claim fair use on them. Majorly (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean that for fairuse rationales, the uploader is personally responsible for the claim? I'd always been under the impression that it was claimed on behalf of the project once the "save page" was pressed. Bob talk 23:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes. It's the user who claims but if they wish to stop claiming then it no longer applies. Majorly (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be a valid reason for deletion of non-free images with valid fair-use rationales. Also, it would mean that if someone forgot to add a rationale when they uploaded an image, nobody else would be able to. anemone
│projectors 00:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)- I agree - there is no reason for such a mass deletion. Please restore the images; I'll work on the declarations if need be. --Ckatzchatspy 03:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think that should be a valid reason for deletion of non-free images with valid fair-use rationales. Also, it would mean that if someone forgot to add a rationale when they uploaded an image, nobody else would be able to. anemone
Cropping large chucks of an article?
Did seven thousand+ characters of copyright expired text quoted in the Stafford article really need to be cropped out twice as "unconstructive" and "vandalism"? In each case it was done within a minute of the original post. A bit over-zealous are you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coob (talk • contribs) 09:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unencyclopedic text will always be removed. Try readding it so it reads like an encyclopedic article. Thanks, Majorly (talk) 09:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
you read quickly don't you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coob (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
actually, i'm surprised that you haven't cut even more chunks of that article out, considering how its formatted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coob (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Guitar Hero
What I did was not vandalism. I tried to delete the page because it was such junk, they listed "Satan/Hitler with the help of Mickey Mouse" as the developers! The bot then reverted my deletion so I nominated the page for speedy deletion, Cometstyles (talk) found an earlier version that was an accurate clean article about the game and did the reversion and now all is well.--Cbsimpson (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Reverting is the correct way to do it. Do you think we delete articles just because they are vandalised? :) Majorly (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you said there (which is all mentioned in Wikipedia:Vandalism).
- Cbsimpson, you might want to look at the "How to respond to vandalism" section at Wikipedia:Vandalism for some helpful tips.
- And by the way, the original edit (by 220.237.81.231) that started it all was actually a copy and paste from the Guitar Hero article over at Uncyclopedia. Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The Outlandish article
I don't understand why you reverted the lowdown version of the new controversy surrounding Isam Bachiri. It is a controversy, and there were no problems with the wording, etc when the text was cut down to the basic problems. Eik Corell (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would really like you to explain, otherwise it's going back. Eik Corell (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Put it back then. Majorly (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfairly using BOTS to block legit edits of pages.
I am getting fairly fed up with the unfair blocking of edits on this site. You need to review the REAL rules, legality of the issue and obey the LAWS of this country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.187.173 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is indef-blocked user User:The Cyndicate. The IP address has also been blocked. Nakon 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! Majorly (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Multiple vandalism
Thank you for reverting vandalism at Ancient Greek. You missed however two previous edits by the same vandal[1], that I restored. When reverting vandalism, you might also wish to check the page history. Andreas (T) 18:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Question
Hello Majorly, recently I've being seeing a lot of edit summaries saying "Revert previous revision by xyz", as seen in summaries like [2]. What script are you are other using that generates that edit summary? Acalamari 18:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- See User:Gurch/Huggle. Majorly (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. That explains Gurch's reverts too. Thanks! Acalamari 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to Majorly for his speedy RC patrol reverting/warning. Almost 1k edits today alone!!?!? I assume the program you were developing before is now working. Keep up the awesome work! Nishkid64 (talk) 20:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC) |
- Ah.... it's not my program :) - it's Gurch's. See User:Gurch/Huggle. Btw, also see Special:Contributions/AndonicO. Thanks for the reward though :) Majorly (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Your account has been compromised.....
..... by a bot, the borg or something! I'm going to block you for potential damage to the Wikipedia infrastructure caused by too many edits....:) seriously, guess the new toy works well then? Pedro : Chat 21:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Best Anti-vandalism tool I have ever used in my one and a half years here. Majorly (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll investigate it further. Seems damn good, the only problem I have is that I don't have admin rights to my work laptop, so won't be able to install it. Might stick it on one of my home ones if I can get granted permission though Pedro : Chat 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Coburn
Majorly
The changes I made were factual, Daniel Coburn was never demoted by Lt. Pantano, A lieutenant cannot do that on the spot, it has to go through court marshall or NJP, Also, I was in 2/2 Echo company at the time and I am friends with Dan. The source used to get information on this person origonally was poor, it is a book written by Lt. Pantano which screws up many facts about our tour in Iraq.
Do I need to do this from home, if it is the campus computer being the problem, I could do that, if not, what do I need to do to have this info corrected without you guys overturning it immediately without looking in to the actual facts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.135.1.92 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 Jan 2008
Thank you.
Thanks, but still 20 minutes on the clock. ;) · AndonicO Hail! 23:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
| |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
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) 00:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Mass image deletions
Please don't do that again. :) Even through you reverted yourself in the process you tripped ImageRemovalBot that removed the images from use in articles which tripped BJBot into tagging them orphaned fair use. BJTalk 07:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Gurch's comment
Eh? Dlohcierekim 00:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's called a joke... Majorly (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- OH MY GOD. LOL. Dlohcierekim 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I actually laughed at that one, good one! Tiptoety talk 01:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- OH MY GOD. LOL. Dlohcierekim 00:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.