![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
And thank you for the kind words. Have a good one! east.718 at 03:51, January 3, 2008
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() |
Thanks for your support | |
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
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)
![]() |
![]() |
...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.
In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.
By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.
Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.
John Carter ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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 for your note and comments; I appreciate it. -- Avi ( talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your support at my
request for adminship, which passed
today with 42/0/0!
I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Majoreditor/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008) and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks again, —dima /talk/ 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
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)
![]() |
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
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)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles [1]. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service 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)
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)
![]() |
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. — Remember the dot ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
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)
|
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)
Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Thanks for your time, Cirt ( talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 09:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 [2] to a very earlier version of the article. He posted a comment here [3], 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)
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#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 ( talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi Majoreditor,
I found two sources on typography here [4] 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)
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)
File:David,larry.JPG | My RFA | |
Thank you muchly for your support in
my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Dear Majoreditor, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats. |
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)
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)
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)
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#Russian_Orthodox_Cathedral_in_Nice.2C_France 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)
![]() |
|
Thanks for the support |
Thanks for your rock-solid support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi Majoreditor,
Could you please take a look at my proposal here [5]. Thanks in advance, Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Done. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I sent you an email recently. Majorly ( talk) 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Majoreditor/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008)!
You are cordially invited to participate in
WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
![]() |
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
And thank you for the kind words. Have a good one! east.718 at 03:51, January 3, 2008
Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash ( talk) 04:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() |
Thanks for your support | |
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.-- Jayron32| talk| contribs 06:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC) |
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)
![]() |
![]() |
...for your support in my recently closed Request for Adminship. I am more than a bit stunned by the outcome, which appears to have finished at 146 supports, no opposes, and one abstention. I am particularly grateful to Keilana and Kingboyk for their recent encouragement, and most specifically to Pastordavid, for having seen fit to nominate me. I also want to make it very clear to everyone that I have no intentions of changing my name again, so the servers should be safe for a while.
In the event you ever believe that I would ever able to assist in the future, I would be honored if you were to contact me regarding the matter. I can't guarantee results, unfortunately, but I will do what I can. Thank you again.
By the way, I know the image isn't necessarily appropriate, but I am rather fond of it, and it at least reflects the degree of honor I feel at the result. And it's hard to go wrong with a Picture of the Year candidate.
Now, off to a few last tasks before starting work in earnest on the various templates I promised I'd work on.
John Carter ( talk) 17:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
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 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 for your note and comments; I appreciate it. -- Avi ( talk) 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
-- Gatoclass ( talk) 06:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
|
Thanks for your support at my
request for adminship, which passed
today with 42/0/0!
I would like to thank Wizardman for nominating me, Majoreditor/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008) and everyone else for their support and comments. I'll continue with contributing to the encyclopedia's content (hopefully writing an FA here and there :) and will help out with admin-related tasks which you just entrusted me with. If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask! Thanks again, —dima /talk/ 01:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
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)
![]() |
Thanks for participating in my RfA! | |
Although it failed 43/27/0, I'm happy because the outcome has been very helpful in many meaningful ways. Your support and remarks contributed so much to this. If you followed my RfA you know what happened. Most of the editors who posted opposing opinions have never edited with me. Some articles I edit deal with controversial topics and with respect to a very few of these, editors who didn't know much about me had some worries about confrontational editing and civility. Since I support their high standards I can easily (and will gladly) address this. The support and ecouragement to run again soon has been wonderful, thanks again. Cheers! Gwen Gale ( talk) 05:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC) |
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)
The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
Hello. You have been identified as having added or removed direct external map service links in articles [1]. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Issues with inclusion or exclusion of map service 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)
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)
![]() |
Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. — Remember the dot ( talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC) |
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)
|
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)
Thanks for your comment at Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Project Chanology/1. Thanks for your time, Cirt ( talk) 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
-- PFHLai ( talk) 09:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 [2] to a very earlier version of the article. He posted a comment here [3], 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)
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#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 ( talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash ( talk) 06:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi Majoreditor,
I found two sources on typography here [4] 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)
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)
File:David,larry.JPG | My RFA | |
Thank you muchly for your support in
my recent request for adminship, which was successfully closed on 76%, finishing at 73 supports, 23 opposes and 1 neutral. The supports were wonderful, and I will keep in mind the points made in the useful opposes and try to suppress the Larry David in me! Now I'm off to issue some cool down blocks, just to get my money's worth!
Kidding btw. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 11:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
Dear Majoreditor, thank you for taking part in
my RfB. As you may know, it was
not passed by bureaucrats. |
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)
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)
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)
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#Russian_Orthodox_Cathedral_in_Nice.2C_France 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)
![]() |
|
Thanks for the support |
Thanks for your rock-solid support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC) |
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)
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)
Following Tel Aviv's third failed FAC, I have worked on the issues brought up and renominated it for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tel Aviv/archive3. Thanks. Flymeoutofhere ( talk) 11:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Hi Majoreditor,
Could you please take a look at my proposal here [5]. Thanks in advance, Cheers, -- Be happy!! ( talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash ( talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Done. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi I sent you an email recently. Majorly ( talk) 14:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello Majoreditor/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008)!
You are cordially invited to participate in
WikiProject Christianity
The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented. |
![]() |
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)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |