User talk:Majorly/Removed stuff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] This page is for trolling/vandalism from my talk page
[edit] User:FisherQueen
How ironic eh? Well not really no- the fact is it is not ironic that you then had to put the vandalism counter up again by one, thus reverting a "vandal's" edit, so much as you were wrong to revert the edit in the first place. See? Nothing ironic- just pure stupidity on your part sir. If you considered the vandal's edit to be vandalism, then it would have been right to leave the counter set at 65, not revert it you moron. Otherwise, it was not vandalism, in which case you shouldn't have reverted it for that reason (although it must be otherwise the counter woudl have been changed unnecessarily). Anyway, the point is: that wasa really stupid thing to do. You should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself.
Mick fitzgibbon 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
STFU
He has no children from any of his marriages, which may be good, considering he's a pill-popper and has idiotic views of global warming. The planet is not in a natural warming cycle as the idiot put it. That would make very little sense, how would this natural cycle that warms the entire planet work? I'm sure he doesn't have an answer. The warming is man-made. The sun isnt getting hotter, and I havn't seen the yellowstone super-volcanoe erupting lately either. The idiot also laughed off sea level rise, but he apparently doesn't realize only a few inches could swamp many areas of the world. For example, in the Persian Gulf region, the land only rises an INCH every 50 miles or so, so a sea level rise of only a few inches would cover large portions of the region. Not to mention, if the entire Antartic ice sheet did melt, sea levels would really rise around 200 feet! The point is though, even a rise of only a few inches, which is already beginning, would be devastating. No this is NOT vandalism, as I believe I have accurately represented his views here, and have shown how wrong they are.
No this is NOT vandalism, as I believe I have accurately represented his views here, and have shown how wrong they are. So stop telling what I wrote about Limbaugh is vandalism, because it isn't. Your just upset I insulted your ultra-conservative hero, who sounds like a facist at times.
Hi there, I'd like to request unprotection for this page. As a capitalist I believe in the free flow of ideas and money without getting government or "big brother" in the way. Firstly, Mark Robinson put himself out there as a public figure and when you do that you have a duty to uphold your reputation. If you're a big bag of bacon and you offer yourself to the wolves don't expect them to "respect" you. They're gonna devour you like the pile of grease you are. I think it's reprehensible that Wikipedia is using its resources to protect and serve this monster. Shall I suggest some partisan meddling is going on? Are you a bunch of flakey NDP lackeys or something? Why don't you drive Wikipedia into the ground like you did our economy. For shame.
What do you, "Catchpole" have to do with all of this? When I look at the history I see your name come up several times. Why are you constantly editing this? Are you curled up in bed all day with your laptop or something? Grow up.
As for Mark Robinson, I think we need to have a healthy, open forum on his moral ineptitude before he spoils the lives of Chinese youth. Why is over there? Surely it's not for the fresh air... catch my drift? Think, Woody Allen. Mhm...
As far as the content of my edit who are you judge what is true or not? Furthermoe I know for a fact it was true as I have a good source.
Majorly is gay. Hay.
[edit] Hello
Please do not edit this page: Sebinkarahisar. Because Sebinkarahisar Turkish city. Admin do not reply me message. just shut up !!! --Fatih1453 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA failed
Hi, Majorly. You wrote on my talk page that my nomination "has been withdrawn as the nomination would likely not have succeeded" and "this was only done to reduce any ill will that might have been generated by the process." I don't know what "ill will" you are talking about here but, if it means that I could have been emotionally hurt by the process, I really don't mind. In fact, I don't think that less than one day is time enough to say that the nomination would likely not have succeeded. Even if it is, I would like to see the comments of other people and the true amount of opposition and support that I have. Please, I would like the process to continue. A.Z. 17:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid this is standard procedure. You had no supports whatsoever, plenty of opposition and two suggestions to withdraw. If you want feedback, get an editor review. Majorly (hot!) 18:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to get an editor review, as you suggested, but I still think that those few hours were not enough to reach any kind of conclusion. A.Z. 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I, and probably everyone who participated think differently. Just by doing this shows you have a lot to learn. Majorly (hot!) 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- People who have a lot to learn can't be administrators? A.Z. 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. I don't suppose you've read the guide, the admins page or any successful RfAs and the standards people like. By doing this, you are clearly unaware of common procedures round here, and with that I wish to end this discussion. Majorly (hot!) 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's good that you share your feelings about continuing to discuss with me. But you are wrong about me being unware of the common procedures here. I'm well aware of them: people who can respond vague and meaningless questions like "when should one ignore the rules" without saying something that unpleases other people get elected. People who claim to understand the rules are elected. People who have a lot of edits are elected, and people who just want to help Wikipedia without having to lie and to be manipulative and dishonest do not get elected. I am honest and that would be a good reason to elect me. However, the whole idea that an administrator should be elected is wrong: this is a wiki, it is an "open" encyclopedia and all people should be administrators, just like all people can edit articles. There should not be a club of the most populars that have more power than the others: popular people are a minority with nothing special that would make them the best for the job. A.Z. 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to discuss this. They aren't elected anyway, so yet another thing you are unfamilar with. Majorly (hot!) 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having a conversation with Majorly and I'd think Majorly's talk page would be an appropriate place for doing so. By the way, I'd like it if you left a comment on my editor review. No-one participated yet. As to the election thing, I still think they are elected, even after your denial of it. A.Z. 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're discussing how admins should be made here. Nothing to do with me, about me, or of interest to me. What are you trying to achieve by interrogating me like this? They are not elected, and never have been. Majorly (hot!) 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You were the one who started the conversation, on my talk page. Your opinion was that the process of my request for adminship should be finished early, and I disagreed with you. So I came here and explained my reasons to disagree and now we are trying to reach some sort of agreement (at least I am). A.Z. 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, unfamiliarity. I left you a standard message {{RfA withdrawal}}, as courtesy, and did not want to start a conversation about it. I've closed many RfAs before, who were in a similar boat to you (i.e. not a snowball's chance in hell of passing), and as an experienced admin, who is very familiar with the RfA process, I can tell you that if I had not closed it, another user would have done soon. Why? Because to leave it open is a complete waste of time when the result is painfully clear from the start, and there are more important things to do than oppose a request that simply has no need to be there. Majorly (hot!) 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You just told me a lot of your opinions. You say your opinions, you justify them with arguments and then you tell me that you do not wish to discuss anything nor do you wish to have a conversation with me. If you don't want to, then why do you even bother to type anything? Just stop responding once and for all and stop leaving messages on people's talk pages and stop closing RfA's if you are not willing to accept the responsability for your actions. A.Z. 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I accept responsibility. My actions were completely correct. I wish I'd never bothered to tell you I'd closed it now, so much for being courteous and helpful. Majorly (hot!) 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am here saying that your actions were incorrect. If you accept responsability for them, doesn't that imply that you have to talk to me and respond? You seem to be wishing that I just stop talking to you and shut up. You want me to go away and you want to continue acting without having to explain to anyone why you did what you did. So much for being responsible. More specifically, you said: "You're discussing how admins should be made here. Nothing to do with me, about me, or of interest to me." If it is not of your interest how administrators are made, then why on earth do you keep meddling with requests for adminship? A.Z. 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- This conversation has lost me. What do you want Majorly to do? – Steel 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- My original request was: "Please, I would like the process to continue." A.Z. 22:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- This conversation has lost me. What do you want Majorly to do? – Steel 22:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am here saying that your actions were incorrect. If you accept responsability for them, doesn't that imply that you have to talk to me and respond? You seem to be wishing that I just stop talking to you and shut up. You want me to go away and you want to continue acting without having to explain to anyone why you did what you did. So much for being responsible. More specifically, you said: "You're discussing how admins should be made here. Nothing to do with me, about me, or of interest to me." If it is not of your interest how administrators are made, then why on earth do you keep meddling with requests for adminship? A.Z. 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I accept responsibility. My actions were completely correct. I wish I'd never bothered to tell you I'd closed it now, so much for being courteous and helpful. Majorly (hot!) 22:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You just told me a lot of your opinions. You say your opinions, you justify them with arguments and then you tell me that you do not wish to discuss anything nor do you wish to have a conversation with me. If you don't want to, then why do you even bother to type anything? Just stop responding once and for all and stop leaving messages on people's talk pages and stop closing RfA's if you are not willing to accept the responsability for your actions. A.Z. 22:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Again, unfamiliarity. I left you a standard message {{RfA withdrawal}}, as courtesy, and did not want to start a conversation about it. I've closed many RfAs before, who were in a similar boat to you (i.e. not a snowball's chance in hell of passing), and as an experienced admin, who is very familiar with the RfA process, I can tell you that if I had not closed it, another user would have done soon. Why? Because to leave it open is a complete waste of time when the result is painfully clear from the start, and there are more important things to do than oppose a request that simply has no need to be there. Majorly (hot!) 22:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You were the one who started the conversation, on my talk page. Your opinion was that the process of my request for adminship should be finished early, and I disagreed with you. So I came here and explained my reasons to disagree and now we are trying to reach some sort of agreement (at least I am). A.Z. 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- You're discussing how admins should be made here. Nothing to do with me, about me, or of interest to me. What are you trying to achieve by interrogating me like this? They are not elected, and never have been. Majorly (hot!) 21:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having a conversation with Majorly and I'd think Majorly's talk page would be an appropriate place for doing so. By the way, I'd like it if you left a comment on my editor review. No-one participated yet. As to the election thing, I still think they are elected, even after your denial of it. A.Z. 21:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is the wrong place to discuss this. They aren't elected anyway, so yet another thing you are unfamilar with. Majorly (hot!) 21:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's good that you share your feelings about continuing to discuss with me. But you are wrong about me being unware of the common procedures here. I'm well aware of them: people who can respond vague and meaningless questions like "when should one ignore the rules" without saying something that unpleases other people get elected. People who claim to understand the rules are elected. People who have a lot of edits are elected, and people who just want to help Wikipedia without having to lie and to be manipulative and dishonest do not get elected. I am honest and that would be a good reason to elect me. However, the whole idea that an administrator should be elected is wrong: this is a wiki, it is an "open" encyclopedia and all people should be administrators, just like all people can edit articles. There should not be a club of the most populars that have more power than the others: popular people are a minority with nothing special that would make them the best for the job. A.Z. 20:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- Not really. I don't suppose you've read the guide, the admins page or any successful RfAs and the standards people like. By doing this, you are clearly unaware of common procedures round here, and with that I wish to end this discussion. Majorly (hot!) 19:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- People who have a lot to learn can't be administrators? A.Z. 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I, and probably everyone who participated think differently. Just by doing this shows you have a lot to learn. Majorly (hot!) 19:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to get an editor review, as you suggested, but I still think that those few hours were not enough to reach any kind of conclusion. A.Z. 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
(reset) I must say that Majorly did not respond to my last post before Steel came into the discussion.
I told on my original post some of the reasons why I'd like the process to continue. Certainly none of them is to waste people's time. People are not forced to vote and to express their opinions if they don't want to: I'm sure this is voluntary. By the way, saying that my purpose is to waste people's time violates a lot of policies. However, I don't agree with these policies anyway, as you can see on my talkpage. I'd just like to ask if you are like me and you admit it when you are not assuming good faith. A.Z. 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am nothing like you, and I wish you'd stop trolling me. I'm removing this pointless discussion to my removed stuff page. Majorly (hot!) 23:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sockpuppet?
Sockpuppet? Not at all. We share the same IP address and are sitting in the same room, but I assure you that the person who you think I am a sockpuppet of is an entirely different sack of flesh and blood. Also, he didn't ask me to do any of those edits. I carried them out to protest at the pettiness of Durin's edits. Wikipedia is far too full of people like him. UselessMan 21:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Burn
FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER ARE YOU GOING TO LEAVE ME ALONE??? Telbiltec 20:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SPA'S
Spa's my ass looser, go and bum cool blue. He's a sucker too.
[edit] hey
Manchester is for glory hunters and illegal gun crimes. Weasel king of swords 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
IRAQ
