User talk:Majoreditor/Archive 6 (August - December 2008)

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo Gregory III Laham
Hi, I am a user the Spanish Wikipedia. I speak and write bad the English but I've the question: What is the license photograph of the patriarch? Because the web says "public domain and I want to publish it in Spanish Wikipedia. Thank you very much. Contact me at Spanish Wikipedia: Villeguillo. --87.111.103.133 (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfB
Thanks for your !vote. Just to make a pernickety point - I have bags of contributions to RfA itself. IIRC, when I last checked, it was about 50 since June 1st, despite having had a 10 day wikibreak in that period. The criticism you might have picked up on was my contribs to WT:RFA, which are much less (but, I would argue, of good quality, and lack of edits isn't the same as not reading the page and keeping up with the mood)Cheers, the ever so slightly pedantic --Dweller (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

MT
Hi, I havn't closely followed the evolution of the article. What is there now closely resembles what I remember being there, though the section title is an improvement as is that criticis, now gets a mention in the lead. ISTR that I had the mention of the state funeral at the front because it followed on from the section discussing her death. At one point there was a mention where left-wing critics are mentioned that they also dislked her apparent support for Reagan and Thatcher.

Oh and the spelling of "honor" caught my eye. Given her Indian citizenship, perhaps the article should be converted to their prefered spelling.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your kind words
Thank you very much for your kind words and confidence. I am still ruminating on whether to make a third attempt, although I have not really done anything at WP:CHU since the last run, and that seemed to be a sticking point. If you have any other advice, I'll be happy to receive it :) Thanks! -- Avi (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church
Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA.  Nancy Heise    talk  23:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta, Georgia
Greetings,

Please reconsider some of your edits to the Atlanta, Georgia article. You removed even the mention of when Atlanta first got its name. Name changes should be in the article, as they happen very infrequently but are quite pertinent. Ryoung122 11:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mother Teresa
Protected for a week. Will expand when it's necessary again after the 1 week. Garion96 (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Majoreditor (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The edits to this article lately continue to make the removal of the "lack of neutral POV" tag completely impossible. I notice no attempt to reach consensus has even been attempted.  Almost all criticism remains cut out of the articleJJJ999 (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:MotherTeresaTimeMag.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:MotherTeresaTimeMag.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? —Angr 13:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ireland
Could you outline for me how exactly STFU-MF followed the guidelines for GA process delisting. On the delisting page there are several points listed in bold text, I don't see adherence. Cheers, --ZincBelief (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Geometry guy provided a well-crafted answer on the GAR talk page. Let's see what discussion results from the request for comment. Best, Majoreditor (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Messianic Judaism GAR
Good article reassessment/Messianic Judaism/2 - properly this time. -- Avi (talk) 15:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Avi. I have looked over the article and commented at GAR. I share many of your concerns about the article falling short of GA criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

International Pentecostal Holiness Church
In your review, what exactly do you mean when you say "the prose is uneven?" Thanks.Ltwin (talk) 20:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean that the writing has some rough patches. Most of it is GA quality; however, there are a few sentences which need to be wordsmithed. I'm happy to point them out or to help out. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could that would be helpful. I understand that the article isn't up to GA quality yet and am happy to make necessary improvements.Ltwin (talk) 04:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will either list issues on the article's talk page or fix them. Best, Majoreditor (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

New Consensus sought on lead sentence
Please come give us your opinion by voting here, Thanks!  Nancy Heise    talk  17:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Major, could you please indicate what it is you support. Currently your second vote is placed somewhere in nomansland. Str1977 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again, I have found another solution. If your vote was for "sentence 2" you don't need to do anything. Str1977 (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, if I can try your patience a bit more- I am conducting now a new vote here but this is on whether or not you think the sources support the article text in note 1 which follows Catholic Church in the lead sentence. Soidi has challenged that my sources do not support the text. Please come give me your opinion so I can have consensus either one way or the other so we can move forward.  Nancy Heise    talk  03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Further discussion on achieving compromise on this issue is ongoing on the Talk Page.  Xan  dar  00:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

One last vote please
Hi, Xandar conducted a new discussion on the use of "official" our original sentence going into FAC that survived Peer Review and several months of mutliple editors. I have agreed not to vote on this one but to agree to whatever consensus of editors decides. Can you please come back for one more vote here:. Thanks for you help in deciding the matter once and for all.  Nancy Heise    talk  16:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your help during the review process for Piedmont Park. I have been unable to contribute as of late and just saw that it passed GA review. SweetMelissaGT (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! Congratulations on the GA pass. Majoreditor (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article.  Nancy Heise    talk  01:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback
Thanks for your input at my successful Rfa. I'm already thinking about working on my content creation. Hopefully in a few months, I'll have passed the point where you would've !voted Support. If you have any more suggestions on how I can improve myself as an editor, I'd be happy to hear them. Happy editing!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You'd also expressed concern about my report of User:Fullyang to WP:UAA. I had actually created that account per an Account Creation request as part of my duties on the account creation team.  I didn't notice until after I'd created it that the e-mail address was using the Fullyang.com domain name.  Do you still think the UAA request was wrong? I'd like to hear your thoughts.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

John Chrysostom
Hi. I notice you're a member of WP:Lebanon where I have asked people to check whether the assumption that all the edits of an editor were vandalism is correct. The editor's first edits were to the above article. They've recently been reversed as vandalism in this edit. But I'm not convinced that they were vandalism. I suspect that you've got a good chance of being able to tell whether this decision was correct. Thanks--Peter cohen (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Now I look at the history of the article, I see that you have edited it yourself, but I just assumed that it was a subject you would be knowledgeable on anyway. I hope you don't mind my typecasting you like that. ;-)--Peter cohen (talk) 10:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Talking about copyediting
Hiya Majoreditor. I'm starting a thread on copyediting at FAC here: WT:WikiProject Featured_articles. G-Guy considers you a good go-to guy for issues of copyediting at GAN. Although I think it's a good idea to look for input mostly among Refdesk/Language and FAC reviewers, because these people have traditionally been the people who don't fall asleep at the mention of the word "copyediting", I want to make sure that we're thinking ahead, and any process created could eventually help increase throughput and quality at any article review process, not just FAC, as long as we've got the volunteer effort to make it happen. Would you join us? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Response on Dan's talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, I hope you can join us next year. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RfA
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Christianity

 * Propose renamingCategory:Ancient Roman Christianity to Category:Ancient Christianity
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a technical nomination following the close of this discussion with no consensus. It appears that there may be a consensus for a rename, hence the renomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. -- Carlaude (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Sleiman Hajjar
A tag has been placed on Sleiman Hajjar requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 04:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Eeekster (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Bishops are notable. See JClemen's comments as he declined your speedy delete tag. Best wishes, Majoreditor (talk) 06:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)