User talk:Majorly/Archives/4

Active discussions

Chairperson section removalEdit

I removed the section on the Chairperson page before. It was undone by Razorflame. I discussed it with Razorflame why I deleted it and he agreed with me and so I was "allowed" to delete it again. I deleted it again. Now another guy (you, Majorly) decided to undo the deletion, so now I have to discuss (again) why I deleted it. I'm wondering how many times this can be repeated, I guess it can be repeated as many times as there are Wikipedia "editors" but here we go:

I removed the Religion section on Chairperson for the fact that the religion section is totally irrelevant. On the page is written: "In Christianity, a chairperson is the person who is in charge of the chairs of people in the Society of Friends." I removed this section because:

It is the same thing as writing the following on the page about "Volunteer": "In Scientology, a volunteer is a person who helps gathering new members for the Church of Scientology."

It's exactly the same, so I think removing it is the only right thing to do, and it's not at all vandalism. So now you know why I removed it ;-)

You can always try to convince me otherwise ofcourse.

If you bothered using an edit summary to explain your removal, you wouldn't have to explain every time. Removal of text without obvious reason is treated as vandalism. Majorly (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked a little bit closer and I've found the "edit summary" thing so I'll use it from now on. But let's be honoust, if you would've read the content I removed you should know that it does not belong there, right? Edit: I just tried that "summary" thing and my text doesn't even fit in it so I shortened it a little bit.

Well it's supposed to be a summary, not an essay. Majorly (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Help Would Be AppreciatedEdit

Hello I am (fairly) new to Wikipedia in general and Simple especially. I'd be very grateful if you could go to my user page and look at some of the articles in the list of ones I have created. I think they are pretty good myself but another opinion and some advice would be appreciated. many thanks --The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice work so far! Majorly (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Congrats on your 100th block! --Gwib -(talk)- 20:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


You have a habit of welcoming me. ;) Thanks for pointing out the link, too. · AndonicO Engage. 13:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back!Edit

Hi there! Welcome back! Missed ya! Cheers, Razorflame 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been anywhere. Btw what do you think of Wikipedia:Not Now? Majorly talk 14:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You haven't been on, so therefore, I thought that you had left...anyways, other than that page being a bit complex for us, it is a great page. Cheers, Razorflame 14:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit to RfA headerEdit

Majorly, This edit is not right, especially for an experienced user like yourself. I understand that you may be annoyed after the comments on RfA, but if you wish to discuss it further, take it to Simple Talk or the Admin Noticeboard. Edits like that aren't solving anything. Archer7 - talk 14:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with it, exactly? Creol and most others certainly don't think it's no big deal. Majorly talk 14:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It violates WP:POINT. I don't wish to argue with you. Please use Simple Talk or the AN to discuss it further. Archer7 - talk 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Correcting wrong information violated WP:POINT? Wow. No, I'd rather not argue with you, I'd rather you left my edits alone in future. If you want to give a false idea that candidates will be accepted as "no big deal", so be it. Majorly talk 15:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You have made me lose respect for you. Your actions both on the English Wikipedia and here have made me lose a lot of respect for you. I used to look up to you because you were all cool and stuff, but now, I don't even want to have interactions with you. That is just how much of my respect you have lost. Come back and edit when you can act like someone in your position. Right now, I just don't see that coming from you anymore. Razorflame 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. It's not my fault that certain bureaucrats enjoy treating users less powerful than themselves like crap. Majorly talk 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


  The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For all your hard work reverting vandalism and such, even though at times it seems discouraging, I award you this Barnstar! --  AmericanEagle  17:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply at my editor reviewEdit

My reply here. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Iz spam RFA?Edit


Gah, I thought I'd done that. Thanks for the pointer. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My Request for AdminshipEdit

Main Page ProtectionEdit

Shouldn't a sysop fully protect the main page? Sebb (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Why? Majorly talk 17:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Because...main page is high-risk? Sebb Talk 22:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but it's not been vandalised recently as far as I know. Majorly talk 22:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't been vandalized since last year... A protection is not needed for a small wiki like ours. En.wikipedia has it protected because it is a very big wiki, so the chances of vandalism there is very high, and with a million visitors everyday, it has to be protected. -- Ryan†Cross (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there.Edit

Yep, I'm back :) Long time, eh? Cheers, Razorflame 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Fox and the HoundEdit

What is your rational for redirecting the article? Cassandra 22:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Two articles on the same thing exist, so I redirected to the better article. Majorly talk 23:09, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
They aren't the same thing. One is a novel, the other is a film. The IP copied and pasted all the film stuff into the novel article when he was originally trying to redirect it and none of us (Ryan, TBC, me) noticed. There is also ample precedent on the English Wikipedia for maintaining separate articles on the film and novel/book. Cassandra 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Fine, revert it then. I didn't realise they were different. Majorly talk 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

sitting out a ban.Edit

How does someone "sit out a ban" - they are for forever, no ? --Allemandtando (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The most successful people usually don't sit it out. They migrate to other projects. Rootology worked on the Commons before appealing for and getting unbanned on the English Wikipedia. Poetlister became an administrator and bureaucrat over at Wikiquote and was unbanned from the English Wikipedia as well. Show good works on other projects. On the other hand, if you get caught socking, they'll burn you pretty badly (Ionas, Davenbelle/Jack merridew). Cassandra 01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much people try to persuade me"Edit

I saw you were online here, so thought it only right to let you know that since you're not watching the RFB on en-wiki, you ought to at least know your opinion has caused further discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Majorly talk 22:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage of toolsEdit

It's very inappropriate to revert someone's edits to a page, and then immediately protect it. You'd be desysopped for that on English Wikipedia. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. And this is Simple English Wikipedia. Stop causing drama here. Majorly talk 22:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not causing drama. But if this is how you treat new editors when they come here, no wonder there's only 20 or so active editors here. The behavior by many of the "long timers" on this project is abysmal. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of editors have come and settled in here, and enjoy it, until certain enwiki editors turn up and demand their voice be heard over the top of everyone else. The times when people from enwiki decide to turn up and stir the drama pot makes people probably wish they didn't participate here. I'll repeat it: you're causing drama. First you oppose a close RfA on a wiki you have no standing on whatsoever on a user you've never heard of until you voted; second you decide to take the matter into your own hands by reverting the closing bureaucrat, despite it closing in your favour. I can't think what purpose either of those actions was for, other than to cause drama. Majorly talk 23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Sorry about the QD on Altamash. I tagged it as non notable because on En I couldn't find it. I think thats because its supposed to be at Iltutmish, or at least it is there. F S M 15:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh you deleted it anyway. F S M 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


Could you point me to the policy that says users must be logged in to discuss politics? I didn't see it on WP:Rules.SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Logging out to avoid scrutiny is not allowed here. I forget the policy, and I don't particularly care to look it up. Majorly talk 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you point me to the policy that allows established users from other projects to make thinly veiled personal attacks while logged out, on a project they are basically inactive on? Majorly talk 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
No I can't, assuming there even is one, because Incivility, and WP:NPA are expressly applicable in those situations. I'm simply wondering if there actually was a policy on logged in/logged out users. SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This edit is unusual - since when did Wikipedia prevent anonymous editors from discussing policies? I thought that was another cornerstone of the principles of Wikipedia? You say it's against policy and I note that you refuse to point people to it. Do you think this is appropriate behaviour from an admin? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The IP in question is an admin on another project(s), and think the behaviour is very inappropriate. I can't think why he'd stoop as low as to make edits from his IP, making attacks on editors with illnesses. There is a policy that states that logging out to avoid scrutiny is not allowed. Using sockpuppets in discussions instead of your normal account is also not allowed. I assume it's on the sockpuppet policy. Majorly talk 19:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Majorly. There is no reason for a highly-respected admin to make such an attack logged out. If he merely forgot to log back in, then he would log back in after he saw that he signed with his IP address. Instead, he kept editing under his IP. The IP geolocates to the exact city he claimed to live in in a userbox on an earlier version of his userpage. — Jonas Rand · (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
See also the IP's edits on enwiki. Majorly talk 19:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

All very interesting but you've circumvented WP:AGF, the policy you wave at everyone at RFA - perhaps the user in question inadvertently edited whilst logged out (I don't see any edits denying he and the IP are one and the same). Your advice to check his en-wiki edits under that IP simply reinforces the fact that people can occasionally edit without remembering to log in... (six perfectly reasonable edits in five months) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he knew he was logged out here. Unless you're suggesting he didn't notice the title of his talk page the four times he blanked it. AGF isn't a policy either, so you lost that argument. As it happens though, I'm rather tired of bickering with you day after day after day. So, to be honest, I don't want to continue discussing with you. We don't normally agree, so I think continuing here is pointless. Majorly talk 19:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's pointless to argue whether or not it was the user's intention to comment anonymously; either way his comment is an obvious attack, and against Wikipedia's policies. It's inexcusable, even for an established user.--TBC 19:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You know he knew he was logged out? Incredible. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter? Point is, the user made an attack, he was warned, and hopefully it won't happen again. Is all this bickering really necessary?--TBC 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It does matter, actually. Majorly makes big deals out of WP:AGF but not here. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And frankly, an admin who says "I'm not going to change my mind, no matter how much people try to persuade me." speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
My god, you're still going on about that? Wow, you can really hold a grudge can't you? Good grief. Majorly talk 20:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not a grudge, it's a great indicator to anyone that has to cope with your behaviour that you're likely to be an immovable object. It's worth letting people know that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If you know my voting pattern on RfAs, you'll know (which you don't) I often switch if I'm persuaded. I'm just tired of seeing bureaucrats being promoted and doing hardly any work. It's a grudge that I opposed your buddy, and you can't get over it - despite the fact that due to you harrassment, I eventually gave in and withdrew my oppose. What is more likely, is that I'll change my mind in the end. Like I changed my mind after making that comment. Seriously, quit bringing it up. It's out of context and irrelevant because I changed my mind in the end. After your annoying pestering of me. I'll ask you the question: is pestering people who disagree with you appropriate behaviour from a bureaucrat? Especially someone they nominated. Majorly talk 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has degraded into a fight for the last word. It's best for us to end it.--TBC 20:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I found a page on en-wiki that actually contradicts your "doing hardly any work" allegory. Since promotion I've been one of the most active 'crats on en-wiki. But that's all irrelevant, like your pursuit of the desysop of one admin who hasn't edited for a few months. I'd suggest you work more on improving the Wikipedia. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's 6 admins, one who hasn't edited for 2 years, another who retired from all projects. As usual you're talking it personally, but that's not in the slightest bit surprising. I suggest you do your thing, and I'll do mine. Majorly talk 20:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


I have just replied to your comment re Daniel. --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh - can I please have that IP protected for a week to registered only to prevent Mr Daniel IP editing it? --  Da Punk '95  talk  22:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
It's his talk page, he's made it clear he wants it blank. No need to edit war over it. Majorly talk 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Hello, you just blocked this editor for 6 months; I know they are uncommunicative, and perhaps even software, but don't you think 6 months is a little long? --Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly. They've had multiple blocks already, are failing to respond, and still creating poor articles, and that are copyvios. It's not worth the risk. Majorly talk 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Majorly/Archives/4".