User talk:Majoreditor/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008)

Re: Thanks for restoring my user page
And thank you for the kind words. Have a good one! east. 718 at 03:51, January 3, 2008

WikiProject Good Articles January Newsletter
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Hello Majoreditor, I have granted rollback rights to your account. The reason for this is that, after a look through your contributions, I can trust you with the tool, and I believe that you will use it for its intended use of reverting vandalism, and that you will not use it for reverting good-faith edits or to edit-war. If you don't want rollback, let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck. Acalamari 03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Acalamari. This is an unexpected surprise. I'll use it with care. Majoreditor (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :) I am sure you will use it well. Acalamari 17:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!
Dear Majoreditor, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget . 16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
John Carter (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Blood Mountain
I went ahead and reverted once more. If the film gets made, then it is suitable to be added - otherwise it is sort of spammy, seems like self-promotion, at the moment. Alternatively, if before the film is made, it is covered by 3rd party sources, then it can be added. As a side note, it appears that some of the external links need to be trimmed. A couple are guide-book type links, and the CNN link should either be used as a source or dropped as the information in that link is in the article. The topo map and the forest service site should stay, as they contain, respectively, copyrighted info that can't be included and the official site of the subject of the article. Pastordavid (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the 3rd opinion. I didn't want to revert him again until we had another set of eyes look at his edits. Majoreditor (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks
Thanks for your kind words regarding my contribution to the Atlanta, GA page. The fact that I'm employed by the CDC was impetus for my action, but I was surprised that no one had included any reference to the CDC. Also, given it's unique nature, it was a matter of deciding whether to create a separate category for it, or including it in the "Economy" section; I obviously chose the latter. There were some other shabby bits that required cleaning up throughout the page as well.

Lastly, I saw in a reply that someone had written you in which they questioned your right to edit a particular page. I haven't been doing this for very long, but the response to that is painfully obvious; this is Wikipedia! I wonder if they had the same response when their writing assignments were corrected in high school. But, from the bit that I've gleaned about you, we share a care and concern for truth, accuracy, and overall good form.

Thanks again for the kind words, and take care.

~Timothy Tjamespaul (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your note and comments; I appreciate it. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Opus Dei controversy section
Thanks for GAR comments regarding this. If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Kindly comment on this. Thanks. Marax (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank-spam
, I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK004 21:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Elias Zoghby
The article Elias Zoghby you nominated as a good article has failed, see Talk:Elias Zoghby for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. jackturner3 (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To get to your concerns: my problem with the prose itself also has to do with the length of the article. Because of the shortness, it feels (to me) like the prose jerks around.  That could just be me personally, and if you don’t feel that way, I won’t argue the point with you.  As far as the references go, that was an error: the vote should have been yay and I have corrected it.  As I said, if you feel the artcile is sufficient as is to be GA, then please reinstate the nomination and I will let someone else review it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. I'll look forward to seeing the new article when it is updated and resubmitted.  And, thanks for understanding about my error.  I've just really started doing GA reviews in the last couple of days, and I'm already up to just about 15, but that in no way means that I am already an expert. -- jackturner3 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Happy-melon
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

External map service links
Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links about which should be done, and some more opinions would be good to find community consensus. --Para (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the external link because readers can access external maps by clicking on the link in the article's infobox. It offers a much larger assortment of maps. Thanks for the offer, but I'm not interested in joining the discussion.Majoreditor (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD on TV network slogans...
You said: ''Merge per XSG. See the article on ABC slogans. Best to bundle them together rather than creating an article for each campaign.'' I thought of that, actually, but in that article, someone cited WP:BUNDLE, which seemed to counsel more AGAINST bunching them together, than for it--or at least, that was my interpretation. Obviously, YMMV... :) Gladys J Cortez 03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Er ... that's a different issue. WP:BUNDLE is the process for nominating multiple related pages for deletion. Majoreditor (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Since they were all slogans, all members of List of NBC slogans (or ABC, or CBS) I figured they were related...the bit in WP:BUNDLE that seemed relevant was If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't. It's not an earthshattering issue, by any means, but I'm trying to understand the subtleties of Wikipedia. I appreciate your help! Gladys J Cortez 03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply...I did consider doing it that way, but...well, then I did it the other way. Pretty much the whole boring story on THAT decision. :) The other consideration was that I did the nominations using Twinkle, and if there's a "list these deletions in one article" feature there, I haven't figured it out yet. :::runs off to RTFM:::: I'd go back and bunch them, but I'm just barely Wiki-markup-literate enough to do the basics, and if I undertook to change the location of all the AfD discussions, I'm fairly sure I'd make a ghastly mess of it. Gladys J Cortez 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypostasis
You were right to be suspicious. There is no way that works as a translation - I undid it. "Subsistence" is what is necessary for survival (food, etc), "substance" is being or essence. If it becomes a problem, I can find citations. Pastordavid (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RFA
 .: Thank you! :.

Indonesian occupation of East Timor (1975-1999)
Thank you for your involvement with this article. I've recently made some changes to eliminate traces of POV writing, and I wonder if you'd care to comment on this discussion about where specifically we need more explanation of Indonesia's perspective? Cheers. – Scartol  •  Tok  18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the invitation. Time permitting, I may drop by the talk page in a few days. Majoreditor (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

GAR comment
Thanks for your comment at Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. No one has raised any other points other than what has been discussed in relation to criterion 5, though several editors have now stated that because this may permanently be a long-term ongoing event, that should not stop the article from reaching GA status. Do you feel that this article can be relisted as a WP:GA? Please respond at Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I will comment at GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Cities
Thanks. We are already aware of the FA class articles (see the last discussion at WT:CHICAGO). We appreciate the advice though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sad story of Allah
Hi Majoreditor,

After I made the changes mentioned by the previous reviewer and the comments of the GA review as much as I could, I nominate the article for GA. But a user reverted back the article to a very earlier version of the article. He posted a comment here, contrary to the previous reviews, now saying there is too much about the concept of Allah in religions. After a couple of reverts back and forth, I dropped the nomination again knowing that it will fail anyways because of the instability :( --Be happy!! (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Majoreditor, I would appreciate it very much. I do feel a bit exhausted about the article. Best, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. In my opinion, the facts like Abjad number for Allah is 66 requires secondary sources since otherwise it will be WP:OR, and someone who does not know anything about the arabic letters can not mechanically check it. For that matter I found a source for this and added it to the article(the source is now gone in the reverts). Now, there is a unicode thing which I think should be of a similar taste (though I don't know the details) but I am kind of sure that there are no reliable sources that explicitly talk about typography of Allah (I searched a lot for it). --Be happy!! (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nun
Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have responded on the article's talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Typography
Hi Majoreditor,

I found two sources on typography here that satisfy my reliable source standards. But I can not understand clearly what they say. Are you familiar with Typography? Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 07:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rhododendron and rhododendrons
Thanks for your query - I remembered the answer as soon as I saw your note. By convention when the names of genera are used they are capitalised and italicised, however when used as common names (and Rhododendrons is a common usage in the UK too), using the plural usually indicates a common name rather than a scientific one. Thus Rhododendron sp but rhododendrons. I should have remembered that before doing my edit - dooh! The real reason for my edit was to correct the spelling rhododendrum. Velela (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
I wanted to personally thank you, MajorE, for your participation in my recent RfB. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 17:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Allah
Hi Majoreditor,

What do you think of re-nominating Allah for GA? All the sections seem sourced :) Thanks --Be happy!! (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Good to see you are back. I have worked a bit more on the article and it may or may not be ready for GA nomination. (?) --Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much!! --Be happy!! (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the copyedit. I think we can now co-nominate it for GA. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I listed the article. Hopefully it will become GA this time. Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
There is a revote on the FA leave comments page of this article. You are invited to reexamine the article and either confirm or deny your previous support vote by voting again. Thanks. NancyHeise (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Help for NPOV on Atheism
Majoreditor. I have looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.

I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)

The discussion place is here. Please help. Kleinbell (talk) 07:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Toddst1
Hi Majoreditor, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Chevetoge & the Russian Catholic Church
Help. An idiot keeps removing Chevetogne Abbey from the list of communities of the Russian Catholic Church. See those two pages as well as User_talk:Albania_T and my talk page. I'm at wits' end, almost. InfernoXV (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence and help! InfernoXV (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Western Rite Orthodoxy
Hello. Remember this article? User:Jackturner3 seems to have stopped editing. Are you up for trying GA again? Gimmetrow 06:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Atlanta

 * No problem. I've reviewed articles for GAC before. Do you need any other help with the article? Regards, Rudget . 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

GAR: Allah
Hi, I reviewed the article and wrote my idea on the talk page of the article. I wait for copy-editting. -- Seyyed(t-c) 05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, In my view it's a good article. But former reviewer has mentioned some problems which you can see here. Thanks-- Seyyed(t-c) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tel Aviv
Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Cannon
Thanks for supporting! It's nice to have finally got an FA; you beat me to it with Gregory of Nazianzus last year. ;-) Anyway, it's good to hear from you again, and I hope you had a good Easter. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sean "Connery > Penn" Williams
Thank you! Your comment prompted me to check, and I saw that the user responded to my question, and I was forced to change my ‰vote; I may have gone too far though… x-} -- Avi (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My proposal
Hi Majoreditor,

Could you please take a look at my proposal here. Thanks in advance, Cheers, --Be happy!! (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! I left a brief comment. Majoreditor (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Please restore a page you deleted
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...
 Thank you... ...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerene talk 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Email
Hi I sent you an email recently.  Majorly  (talk) 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Talk:Papal election, 1292–1294. I have addressed most of your comments, and done something to remedy the one that I have misgivings about. Savidan 02:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)