User talk:Majeston

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What vandalism is not

Please read WP:VANDAL#What_vandalism_is_not and be careful not to label edits as vandalism when they are simply a difference of opinion. Also, please discuss your link on the talk page instead of just re-adding it over and over. (H) 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rodinia

You need to demonstrate the connection form reliable independent sources. Take it to the talk page, and the link stays out unless and until consensus is reached to include it. Guy (Help!) 21:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drive-by vandal??

I'm offended at the accusation. How could you think I'm a drive-by vandal? Your continued reversions of my edits cause me to consider the possibility that you think you WP:OWN the article, although I'm still assuming good faith in your intentions. After walking through the diffs to The Urantia Book, I see you treated C. Logan's edit with the same "drive-by vandalism" comment as mine, to which C. Logan referred you to WP:AGF. I further see you undid the removal of a deleted category; that category was removed because a consensus was developed to delete the category: please don't populate a deleted category. Finally, I don't agree with your contractions of the content in the popular culture section. Some of these points will be raised on Talk:The Urantia Book; I hope you'll participate in the discussions.

Also, if you still feel new to any part of Wikipedia, know that I'm not trying to WP:BITE you. If you would use the undo feature slightly less judiciously, and the talk page more, then we would get along better. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me: half of the time, I change my mind and come to agree with them, or I realize the flaws in my opinion and come to accept a superior compromise. However, other times I can also be intractably stubborn (but I try not to).

I sense you may find Wikipedia's reliance and insistence on citations, footnotes, and references uncomfortable, as I do. However, it is because of such insistence that Wikipedia is evolving, and not devolving (also, the increasingly massive userbase of good-intentioned editors). I fear the UB article may get gutted under a close eye of scrutiny, thus my reluctance to submit it to a wider, more general audience on the peer review, and other, committees. I may not work fast, or deeply, but I have a certain desirable dedication that may eventually help The Urantia Book become a featured article (or at least a WP:GA).

Wikipedia is a place to learn facts, and work on improving articles. Any articles related to the Urantia Book should be free of any form of proselytizing. Wikipedia doesn't want to change anybody's opinions; Wikipedia wants to make a person's opinion as informed as that person's attention span will allow (these opinions are mine alone, and represent nothing by my own opinions as I have come to form them).

I apologize if I've gone on for too long, and/or stuck my foot in my mouth. Correct me as you see fit. Xaxafrad 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] \Your edit summary in the Urantia book

I've never spammed in my life. In my opinion, the only way you can make a mention of Mullis commenting on the Urantia book NPOV is to make it clear what some of his other opinions are (I withheld from pointing out that he's wrong about his statements on the Urantia book). Exactly what is spam about what I wrote? He's not a reliable source, so either it needs to be pointed out or removed if it is going to look as though he might be.Doug Weller (talk) 06:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI notice

There is a discussion about your editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:majeston. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marking virtually all edits as Minor edits

I have complained about this before. The guidelines are quite clear: "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." Minor edits are: "* Spelling corrections

  • Simple formatting (e.g., capitalisation, punctuation, or properly adding italics to non-English words like folie de grandeur)
  • Formatting that doesn't change the meaning of the page (e.g. adding horizontal lines, splitting one paragraph into two—where this is not contentious)
  • Obvious factual errors (e.g., changing 1873 to 1973, where the event in question clearly took place in the later 20th century)
  • Fixing layout errors
  • Adding and correcting wiki links
  • Removing vandalism and graffiti

Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette, especially if the change involves the deletion of some text. Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule."

I am sure you realise that many editors ignore minor edits, even setting their Watchlist not to show them. I am asking again, and for the last time, for you to stop marking anything other than copyedits as minor. I will add that vandalism is things like blanking a whole page, adding obscenities,etc, not edits you disagree with. I'm sure you can see the sense in this and hope you will change your practice.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Urantia Book. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Wazronk (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring at The Urantia Book. In the future, please pursue dispute resolution rather than repeatedly reverting. Note also that it is not acceptable for you to refer to your opponents' edits as vandalism. If you wish to contest this block, you may add {{unblock|your reason here}} to your talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "only 2 rv made and 2 separate material insertions"

Decline reason: "This edit shows some pretty serious problems. You added material with very biased language to the article, and labelled a good-faith edit as 'vandalism.' A 24 hour block for disruptive editing seems reasonable under the circumstances. I am glad that, when the block expires, you are planning to try some of the solutions listed at dispute resolution. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)