Jump to content

User talk:MrMajors

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wikkileaker (talk | contribs) at 18:27, 9 December 2021 (Undid revision 1059078971 by MrMajors (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

ZX Spectrum Vega+

Hi,

I noticed you reverted some edits there, and was wondering what you make of this discussion? Is it genuine, or fishy? Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


MrMajors (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, MrMajors. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arkanoid

May I ask why you continuously revert all of my edits to the previous revision under the assumption it is vandalism? I spent a lot of time trying to fix this page (still am) and I take great offense you're simply labeling it as me causing a ruckus. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 14:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your changes are vandalism as you are removing content without reason. You have given no reason for the removal of the Amstrad and BBC ports from the infobox, nor for deleting all of the valid and informative external links other the link to KLOV. If you have valid reasons to remove encyclopedic content then this should be done in a separate edit with an explanation given in the edit summary, otherwise it can be interpreted as an attempt to avoid scrutiny. MrMajors (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not vandalism. I removed the list of publishers from the infobox as it's not even needed; I fail to see why every single developer/publisher for every single home port of this single game has to be listed, it just clutters up the infobox with info that can just be cited somewhere else in the article. I also am irritated you're deciding to undo all of my edits instead of just adding the stuff you think I removed out of spite back into the article; it is incredibly frustrating, and makes you almost on the grounds for a report to an admin for being disruptive. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole point of the infobox is so that this "clutter" doesn't have to be in the main article. You still haven't given a valid reason for your selective removal of particular platforms. If you don't like all of your edit being undone then you should perhaps avoid being WP:SNEAKY and deleting content with the summary "Starting to add a proper development section." MrMajors (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @MrMajors:Actually, Namcokid47 is right. With enough information about the ports that can be added into the main article's release section, there's no need to list the ports, publishers and developers of the ports about the game in question on the infobox but in other case, there's no choice but to do so (IMO). Although Namcokid47 could be a little more descriptive about some of his edits, he's not maliciously removing information from articles. Those are just my two cents about this subject... Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, Namcokid is not "right" - the question asked was not "why have you removed the list of publishers from the infobox?". The explanation they've given doesn't explain why they have chosen to remove the BBC and Amstrad platforms while adding iOS and mobile phone ports that were made decades later. MrMajors (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The removal of the platforms was simply an error on my part as I was trying to remove something else, but later forgot to get rid of it. I'm getting absolutely sick of you assuming I'm only here to "ruin" the article and cause a nuisance. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • and still you fail to answer the very basic question... MrMajors (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • There is absolutely no reason that I can think of as to why every single publisher for every home port of this one, single game must be listed. It bloats up the infobox, is not needed, and can simply be placed somewhere else in the article. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 15:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, but you also added ports to the infobox. Why must the iOS and mobile phone ports be listed? Why don't they bloat up the infobox? Why can't they simply be placed somewhere else in the article? MrMajors (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                    • There's a difference between simply listing the platforms the game was released on, and listing every single developer/publisher for those ports. If there's too many of them I suppose a collapsible list template could be appropriate? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                      • If necessary. For the record, I don't have an issue with not listing every port in the infobox, but a selection of ports should have a consistent, sensible criteria (ie. not what looks nice) otherwise the field is pointless. MrMajors (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if a link is dead, please attempt to find any archives that exist for archive.org or archive.today as examples. If the link is permanently dead, you can add template:Dead links to the refs. If you question the validity of the source, you may add failed verification template.Blue Pumpkin Pie Chat Contribs 16:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning the validity of the sources. The statements made in the article are not supported by the citations. MrMajors (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZX Spectrum Next

I'm sure the whole community is grateful for constructive contributions to a page that you previously wanted deleted for some reason, but summarily deleting informative content with specious justification is not helpful or welcome. I'm sure it would be appreciated if you engaged with the talk page to discuss your ideas rather than make changes which some might see negatively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanCorps (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of cult video games shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please immediately stop your edit war or you will be blocked to prevent further disruption. Read WP:BRD. You boldly made an addition and at least two editors have reverted and argued against it. You must discuss and reach a consensus before adding it back. -- ferret (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule does not apply when there is clear vandalism - i.e. removal of material supported by multiple reliable sources. MrMajors (talk) 10:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You want to test that theory? Vandalism is deliberate bad faith attempts to harm the encyclopedia, not the good-faith removal of content during a content dispute. The idea that you think that multiple experienced editors are vandalizing because they disagree with you shows a lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines. I also see, through my watchlist, that you've gone to another unrelated article to revert something Indrian validly removed nearly a month ago. If you chase and revenge-revert any of the editors who've reverted you, it'll also be treated as disruption. -- ferret (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, Indrian removed information supported by a reliable academic journal written by an MA from the University of Georgia... MrMajors (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bug-Byte Staff edits to Manic Miner entry.

Dear Sir I worked for Bug-Byte from 1980 to 1983 & have personal knowledge of the artists who created this and other artwork. Not sure what proof you require, but I have my business cards from Bug-Byte! Wonder why you keep removing my true additions to Wikipedia? Yours faithfully Barbara Smathers Bug-Byte Staff (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have no doubt that your information is correct, however Wikipedia needs citations from reliable third parties (ie books. magazines or websites) to support it, and I haven't been able to find any. MrMajors (talk) 12:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! Not sure how to prove to you that my information is correct, not much of the artwork information or artists responsible for it, was published at the time. Have some original documents, on Bug-Byte letter headed paper, written by one of the founders, Tony Baden....happy to publish in its entirety on Bug-Byte entry, then guess that could be linked to Manic Miner information page? Could I ask what is your personal knowledge of, or connection to Bug-Byte? Bug-Byte Staff (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately original documents can't be added to Wikipedia pages. The best place for them would be at https://spectrumcomputing.co.uk/forums/ where they can be properly preserved and archived. I have no connection to Bug-Byte, I'm just a Wikipedia editor! MrMajors (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion process

You tagged Ultrasoft for deletion with WP:A7. You also nominated Towdie for deletion. You failed to notify the author of the two articles. Except in rare cases, not relevant here, this is required. If you are going to use the deletion processes at Wikipedia, you must follow the rules.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion instructions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion state "Consider letting the authors know on their talk page". There is nothing to indicate that it is a requirement. MrMajors (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think of it as one anyway. And in your case, it's clear that you have a bias against the author, which makes your failure to notify the author that much more problematic.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The author is writing articles about their own company and it's products. Wikipedia's rules are biased against them, not me. MrMajors (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrMajors. I'm Barkeep49, an editor and oversighter. In the discussion about Towdie at various places, including here and the AfD, you have been making a specific connection as to who another editor is. While you can make the argument that the editor has a COI and/or is doing UPE, you cannot, under our outing policy make a specific claim about the person's name/identity. This is why some of your comments have been redacted/trimmed. Please let me know, either by pinging me here or leaving a message on my talk page, if you have further questions about this. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The outing policy states "Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person has voluntarily posted their own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia.". This person has already stated their identity on their uploads: eg [[1]]: "Towdie, created and owned by me, Louis Wittek of Ultrasoft". MrMajors (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49? --Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Bbb23.
MrMajors: so I had done some onwiki checking to see if there was a disclosure and didn't find any. The link to the file does make this more of a grey area than it would be otherwise. You might be thinking "Why is it a grey area at all?" and that's because in 2019 the community decided that disclosures not made on English Wikipedia sometimes could still be considered OUTING. And technically that file is located at commons not here. That said I agree with you that the disclosure is sufficient in this case to link the name to the account and will be restoring the material. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Destroyer of the works

I don't know who you are and what your beef with me is, but please at least stop violating outing policy and GDPR. From the previous posts is clear that you are engaging in this sort of personal crusades regularly and that you are a hater and neurotic person who likely didn't achieve anything in their personal career so is at least trying to get kicks from attempts to negate or destroy other people's work. Good luck with that sort of attitude if that's what makes you happy in life. NeonPuffin (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

moron/asshole who mistakenly thinks/believes he/it is not

Mister Majors is added onto the list.Wikkileaker (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrMajors&oldid=1059480133"