User talk:Majoreditor

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

/Archive 3 (through Dec. 2007)‎‎

/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008)

/Archive 5 (May - July 2008)

/Archive 6 (August - December 2008)

/Archive 7 (Jan. - June 2009)

GA Sweeps July update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Florida State University

Hello... I am wondering if you have the time and interest to review the History of Florida State University for GA status. Thanks for any consideration. Sirberus (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, Sirberus. Unfortunately, I'll need to decline because I've made substantial contributions to the parent article. It will be best to nominate the article at GAN. I'll be available should you or the reviewer need another opinion. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well darn. The remuneration would have been considerable, but I understand. :) You did a great job helping to improve the central piece. I hope you still will consider visiting the pages from time to time and make improvements or at least point out areas that need work. Best regards, Sirberus (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudland Canyon State Park

Hi there. I appreciate many people are busy in the real world, however I'm going to give this only until the weekend before I consider failing due to lack of progress. That isn't to say that there's much wrong with the article, just that progress on addressing the points I have raised in the review is rather slow. If the pace of work increases noticeably then I will happily extend the 'on hold' period.

If you have any concerns about this, please let me know on my talk page. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've been doing a fair bit of work, I'll take a look at it later tonight if I can, if not tomorrow. Thanks! Parrot of Doom (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll probably check it out tomorrow for you, that should give you time to sort through things uninterrupted. Hopefully we can have it at GA in a couple of days time. Parrot of Doom (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passed, congratulations and thanks for your hard work :) Parrot of Doom (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps August update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you around

Just to say, I'm always glad to see you around at GAR. Geometry guy 02:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, always glad to help GAR. Majoreditor (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several editors who really understand what GA is for and what it isn't for, in my view, and you are one of them. Keep up the good work! Geometry guy 21:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Majoreditor (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of "Romania" in the lead of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire aritcle

The following book published by the "Cambridge University Press", claims that "Romania" represented a "represented a primary identification", the following books also explicitly claim that "Romania" was used often[1][2] (and there were many other sources shown on the talk page, which support its mention). And that statement was actually added nearly two years ago by User:ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, so it was there for a considerable period of time. Please, reconsider about removing it. Cody7777777 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll follow up with comments on the talk page. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question about mops

Hello Majoreditor! I'm not sure if we've ever interacted before, though I do remember you as an early supporter on my RfA back in 2007. I often see you at RfA, in fact, making thoughtful comments, and your user page and talk page shine with commendations and thank yous. I took a look into your editing stats and you seem to have been a consistent contributor since you first started here at the end of 2006, which is very impressive. So, I thought I'd drop you a line to ask: have you considering running for adminship yourself? You seem to have most of the qualifications, and I'd be very interested in discussing a potential nomination for you, if you like. So drop me a line back, or reply here, if you have a spare moment. Thanks for your time, GlassCobra 16:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand that you have other commitments, of course, and please do contact me whenever you like, be it for a nomination or if you need admin help. Looking forward to hearing from you again! GlassCobra 23:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Re CC origins and historians differing POV's

Hello Majoreditor, sorry to bother you but we are having a vote on the Catholic Church page regarding whether or not to include the dispute among historians regarding the Church origins. Can you please come an give us your vote so we can come to consensus? Vote is taking place here [3] Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invitation

Can you please come here [4] and discuss. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation. It appears that you and Richard are making progress toward text which will be acceptable to most editors. I'll monitor and drop in later on. For the moment I recommend using high-quality sources, ie those from respected academic historians, particularly historians of church history and ancient Roman history. Majoreditor (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Majoreditor ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church infobox

Hello. I've reinstated the infobox on Catholic Church since infoboxes are essential items in transmitting concise, standardized information about an article. If there are some controversial fields, as you have asserted, let's just omit those fields until a consensus can be established on the talk page; but the infobox should remain. Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress ^talk 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has a useful template. Additional boxes should be discussed on the talk page before adding them. Majoreditor (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information conveyed in the current template is already covered in {{Catholicism}} at the bottom of the page. There is currently no infobox on the page that summarizes major church facts. —Eustress ^talk 18:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's discuss on the article's talk page. I think that most editors are fine with the concept of an infobox, but it will be best to work out the particulars before deplaying it in article mainspace. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For accommodating new ideas and exploring their merit with professionalism. Cheers! —Eustress ^talk 23:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Hello, Majoreditor! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.

KV5 (Talk • Phils)

Possible vandalism to "Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church" article

I have been asked[5] by User:Orthopraxia to do something about User:71.195.186.130 who may be vandalising Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church, but I don't feel have enough knowledge of the area to be sure that this is vandalism. Could you have a look at the IP's edits and see if any action needs to be taken. Thank you Grim²³ ★ 01:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Pritzker Pavilion FAC notice

Thanks for your involvement in keeping this article's WP:GA status some time ago at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/1. The article is now listed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jay Pritzker Pavilion/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basilica of St. Louis, King of France

Hello,
You conducted a very welcome GA review of the article Basilica of St. Louis, King of France several months ago. Although this GA nomination failed, I had a few questions/thoughts about your review. In your review, you stated that it "doesn't speak to the current congregation, parish activities and the vibrant cathedral school," and you suggested to "expand the article to include all the major aspects of the cathedral community." The trouble is, the current congregation and parish activities are relatively non-existent. Because the church is non-territorial, it does not have much of an active official congregation. Nor does it have a "vibrant cathedral school", or any school for that matter (I'm guessing the statement in the review was referring to the Cathedral Basilica of St. Louis, which does have a cathedral school). Per your suggestions, I recently added a bit to the lead to better reflect the article, and I added information to substantiate the current nature of the church as primarily a tourist/wedding destination. As a courtesy, could you take a look at it again and let me know if there's something I'm missing about this church? Thanks a bunch, poroubalous (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take another look at the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Thanks,. Xandar 01:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Xandar. I will look over the version sometime in the next few days. Majoreditor (talk) 02:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to the Sweeps process. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Saints in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Saints for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites

Some questions regarding the degree of reliability of certain sources relevant to the Ebionites have been made on that articles talk page. You have had some previous interest in the article, and I believe you may have input which might be useful. Please feel free to review the material and make any statements you wish regarding whether the sourced material does or does not qualify as "fringe" or not. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I kind of butted in with some responses to the Signpost comment above as well, on that page's talk page. Hope you don't mind too much. John Carter (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/1

Can you comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/2009–10 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season/1 on my latest editorial efforts.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ecuminical Reflections.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ecuminical Reflections.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Troy, Alabama

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're a member of WikiProject Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

I know Alabama is a big state, but if you happen to live near Troy and you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone else from Troy who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United States

Hello, Majoreditor! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palacký University of Olomouc

Hello, I would like to get the Palacký University of Olomouc to good article level. Could you please give me some insight on what may be missing in the article, or what needs to be changed? Thank you very much.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

I have recently filed a requewt for arbitration on the Ebionites article. Please feel free to add any comments you believe appropriate. John Carter (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review mentoring

Hi, I saw your name at the GA review mentoring page, and wondered if you'd have time to help me with my first GA review? Best Wishes, Pi (Talk to me! ) 16:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article do you wish to review? Majoreditor (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Robot

Please can you take a look at Industrial Robot and the comments in Talk:Industrial_robot. I feel the article meets class B but an argument between an editor (not me) and an assessor got acrimonious and the assessor refused to rate the article as a class B in spite of it meeting all the criteria and the special status of all robot articles. It looks easy enough to just edit the talk page but I don't want to break any rules. Any advice would be welcome. Robotics1 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I've notice that neither Rlsheehan or Wizard101 have been back on Wikipedia since December 2010. Since I have been the only one seriously 'minding' this article for 5 years I will rate it B class myself. Robotics1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

GA mentor

Hi there- I am a master's student studying Wikipedia for an elective, and hoping you might take me on as a mentor to walk me through the GA nomination process. Is there any particular area you specialize in? --Ncsjfreed (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC) the one I am considering is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackdaw --Ncsjfreed (talk) 23:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am happy to help. I'll drop a note on your talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA nomination mentoring / 2nd opinion

Hi Majoreditor, I noticed your listing at the mentor page for GAN reviews. I've completed my first review on Ron Hextall, and am requesting WP:MOS assistance (guide to layout) a general evaluation of my review the GA nomination for Ron Hextall, and perhaps a 2nd opinion to establish consensus. The nomination page can be found here Thanks, I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to take a look at the review and and offer feedback. I'll leave a note on your talk page with details. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Majoreditor. You have new messages at I Jethrobot's talk page.
Message added 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta black-related characteristics

I have put back a sentence about black Atlanta in the intro paragraph of the Atlanta article and I am sure it will be reversed by another editor "because it doesn't belong there". I invite you to check it out and give your opinion on the Atlanta talk page. We need more input on this discussion.Keizers (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I have added my thoughts to the talk page. Majoreditor (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MT

I can remember your fighting quite hard to keep the article at GA in the past, so it must be a sad day for you. If you want to work with someone who has a different perspective on her from your own, then let me know.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Peter. I've replyed on your talk page. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black mecca sentence in Atlanta intro

I appreciate you getting involved in this, however at the end of *all* that discussion, it still wound up being a sentence that I would add, and would be completely reverted by the other editor involved.

If I can state the issue as neutrally as possible:

I believe that "black mecca" is a fundamental characteristic of the city, without which we are not really describing that basic facts about what makes Atlanta, Atlanta
the other editor believes it is inappropriate to make reference to any one racial group in the intro, as this is unfair to other ethnic groups and inappropriate (i.e. race simply should not be mentioned).

I would like to invite you and the other editors involved in the discussion to get involved in the actual content editing since we are getting nowhere with just me and the other editor flip flopping on this. Meanwhile the article is really suffering. Keizers (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta lead consensus

Majoreditor, I took your advice on the Atlanta page and am trying to work towards consensus on the lead. However, User:Dicklyon is trying to block my edits by labeling them edit warring or reverts. What should I do? --Mmann1988 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet on Atlanta page removing "mecca" from text

HELP! This guy is going bezerk with his sock puppet. This is totally getting crazy. How do we get the page locked and clamp down on this crazy sock puppet weirdness!?! Keizers (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with detailed content about Atlanta

We desperately need opinions and input as to how to organize the detailed content on Atlanta topics, see Talk:Culture_of_Atlanta#Where_should_topic_detail_go.3F Keizers (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will comment on the talk page this weekend. Majoreditor (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, quick question...

I need your help with an article which already is GA status, but I want to clean up the prose a bit. The prose could really use some help, so can you please help me out? The article is Black mamba. Bastian (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review limits changed

This is a notice to all users who currently have at least one open peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review. Because of the large number of peer review requests and relatively low number of reviewers, the backlog of PRs has been at 20 or more almost continually for several months. The backlog is for PR requests which have gone at least four days without comments, and some of these have gone two weeks or longer waiting for a review.

While we have been able to eventually review all PRs that remain on the backlog, something had to change. As a result of the discussion here, the consensus was that all users are now limited to one (1) open peer review request.

If you already have more than one open PR, that is OK in this transition period, but you cannot open any more until all your active PR requests have been closed. If you would like someone to close a PR for you, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. If you want to help with the backlog, please review an article whoe PR request is listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog/items. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Majoreditor. You have new messages at Talk:Gregory_of_Nazianzus#Not_up_to_current_FA_standards.
Message added 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Redtigerxyz ^Talk 18:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet (company) article

Dear Majoreditor,

I posted this article in the mainspace last month and would greatly appreciate it if you could possibly review it when you have a chance. So far, no new page patrollers have reviewed it. Thank you!Braedon Farr (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Hi Majoreditor, I'd like to personally invite you to participate in the 2012 WikiGrail. You can signup here. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review - April 2012

Hi, I have seen your username on the GA reviewer volunteer page. I made an article named Mama Luigi, it's about an episode of the animated series Super Mario World. I hope you could come and review the article. Thanks! 987li (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little help...

Hello. I've nominated Ricardo Arjona as a good article, and i need help to get it reviewed, just to improve it. So, if you're interested in giving me a hand on this, I'll really appreciate it.

Truly. --Hahc21 (talk) 07:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:FaceofGodBook.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FaceofGodBook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox Church

I agree with your revert and would support you in any talk page discussion about it. This editor has added similar material to Icon, Iconoclasm, Eastern Christianity, Council of Hieria, and Second Council of Nicaea so we might need to oppose him more strongly on multiple fronts. Elizium23 (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.

If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Update for: WikiProject Good articles (Participant Clean-Up)

Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:19, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - October 2012

Delivered October 3, 2012 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive this newsletter any longer, please remove your name from this list.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory of Nazianzus

I have nominated Gregory of Nazianzus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Empire

Hi MajorEditor. I notice on the Roman Empire reassessment you mentioned that you would give the article another look and comment on the status. I was looking to close a few of the reassessment, but thought I would first check to see if you had any further concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The GAN Newsletter (November 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 2 – November 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue
Request for Comment: An RFC about the Backlog Elimination Drives has been started this month. Go and voice your opinions! Featured editorial: A Matter of Time: The Future of Backlog Elimination Drives Project News: Over 345 unreviewed articles, 13 at reassessment	Good Articles of the Month GA Task Forces: A calmed GA community awaiting for an RFC Member News: 223 members of the GA Wikiproject

Read this newsletter
Single-page
Unsubscribe
Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 November 2012

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (December 2012)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume III, No. 3 – December 2012

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue
Featured editorial: "Drive-By Reviews": A Retrospective About Reviews During Backlog Drives Project News: A backlog elimination drive is being held now at GAN.	Good Articles of the Month: Our picks for November, 150+ promotions. GA Task Forces: Results from the Backlog Elimination RfC Member News: 227 members of WikiProject Good Articles and counting

Read this newsletter
Single-page
Unsubscribe
Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 3 December 2012

Invitation to WikiProject Brands

Hello, Majoreditor. You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject: Good Articles Newsletter (January 2013)

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 1 – January 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue
Featured editorial: Skyfall by Hahc21. Project News: A record, and issue and a future. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 190 articles passed in December!	GA Task Forces: Results from the drive Member News: Two crucial users leave the project

Read this newsletter
Single-page
Unsubscribe
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 3 January 2012

This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter - February 2013

The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter
Volume IV, No. 2 – February 2013

For past newsletters click here

In This Issue
Featured editorial: Time to make a Sweep by Hahc21. Project News: Several proposals are currently ongoin at the project, including two requests for comment. Good Articles of the Month: See which articles were picked this year of records: 282 articles passed in January!	GA Task Forces: Some minor notes this month Member News: Member news

Read this newsletter
Single-page
Unsubscribe
Newsletter delivered by EdwardsBot · 12 February 2012

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Angelo Sodano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synod of Bishops (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nominations Request For Comment

A 'Request For Comment' for Good Article Nominations is currently being held. We are asking that you please take five to ten minutes to review all seven proposals that will affect Good Article Nominations if approved. Full details of each proposal can be found here. Please comment on each proposal (or as many as you can) here.

At this time, Proposal 1, 3, and 5 have received full (or close to) support.

If you have questions of anything general (not related to one specif proposal), please leave a message under the General discussion thread.

Please note that Proposal 2 has been withdrawn and no further comments are needed. Also, please disregard Proposal 9 as it was never an actual proposal.

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?

Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank uou for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing David Talley :). Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).

Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK RfC

As a listed GA participant, you are invited to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the question of whether Good Articles should be eligible to appear in the Did You Know? slot in future. Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Thank you in advance. Gilderien Chat|Contributions03:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gregory of Nyssa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orthodox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! A GAN Backlog Drive will begin in less than 4 days!

In past Backlog Drives, the goal was to reduce the backlog of Good article nominations. In the upcoming drive, another goal will be added - raising as much money as we can for the Wikimedia Foundation. How will this work? Well, its pretty simple. Any user interested in donating can submit a pledge at the Backlog Drive page (linked above). The pledge should mention the amount of money the user is willing to donate per review. For example, if a user pledges 5 cents per review and 100 nominations are reviewed, the total donation amount is $5.00.

At the time this message was sent out, two users have submitted pledges for a total of 8 cents per review. All pledges, no matter how much money, are greatly appreciated. Also, in no way is this saying you must make a pledge.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me or leave a message on the Backlog Drive talk page. And remember, there are less than 4 days before the drive starts!--EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAN December 2013 Backlog Drive

Hello! Just a friendly reminder that the GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on December 31, 2013!

If you know anyone outside of the WikiProject that may be interested, feel free to invite them to the drive!

If you have any questions or want to comment about something regarding the drive, post them here--EdwardsBot (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive

It's that time again! Starting on March 1, there will be another GAN Backlog Drive! There will be several changes compared to previous drives:

This drive will introduce a new component to it; a point system. In a nutshell, older nominations are worth more points than newer nominations. The top 3 participants who have the points will be awarded the Golden, Silver, or Bronze Wikipedia Puzzle Piece Trophy, respectively.
Unlike the December 2013 Backlog Drive, earning an additional barnstar if you reached your goal has been removed.
The allowance to have insufficient reviews has been lowered to 2 before being disqualified.
An exception to the rule that all reviews must be completed before the deadline has been created.

Also, something that I thought I would share with all of you is that we raised $20.88 (USD) for the WMF in the December 2013 drive. It may not sound like a lot but considering that that was raised just because we reviewed articles, I would say that's pretty good! With that success, pledges can be made for the upcoming drive if you wish.

More info regarding the drive and full descriptions regarding the changes to this drive can be found on the the drive page. If you have any questions, feel free to leave a message on the drive talk page.

I look forward to your participation and hope that because of it, some day the backlog will be gone!

--Dom497

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GAN March 2014 Backlog Drive

The March 2014 GAN Backlog Drive has begun and will end on April 1, 2014! Sent by Dom497 on behalf of MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Chrysostom's updating

Dear Majoreditor,

Thanks. I'm not shy. I'm partial, since I almost fully endorse Mayer's positions, and involved, since I've worked personally on the issue. The current page is obsolete and unreliable, but some community agreement (and a lot of work) is needed to make a thorough revision and restructuring of it. Regards --Sever Juan (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good articles Future GAN Backlog Drive

Hello everyone! Hope you've all been having a great summer!

TheQ Editor recently proposed the idea of having another Backlog Drive in either September/October or November/December of this year. For those of you who have participated in the past two drives you know I was the one who organized them, however, come September, this will be my most important year in school so I will not be able to coordinate this drive (if it happens). TheQ Editor has volunteered to be a coordinator for the drive. If any of you would like to co-coordinator, please notify TheQ Editor on his talk page.

If you would be interested in participating in a Backlog Drive sometime before the end of this year, please notify TheQ Editor. Also, make sure to specify what month(s) work best for you.

At the time this message was sent out, the backlog was at 520 nominations. Since May, the backlog has been steadily increasing and we are currently near an all time high. Even though the backlog will not disappear over one drive, this drive can lead to several others which will (hopefully) lead to the day where there is no longer a backlog.

As always, the more participants, the better, and everyone is encouraged to participate!

Sent by Dom497--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Cup

Hello everyone! We hope you have all been having a great summer!

As we all know, the recent GAN Backlog Drives have not had any big impact on the backlog. Because of that, me (Dom497), Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor have worked on an idea that could possibly finally put a dent into the massive backlog. Now, I will admit, the idea isn't entirely ours as we have took the general idea of the WikiCup and brought it over to WikiProject Good Articles. But anyways, here's what we have in mind:

For all of you that do not know what the WikiCup is, it is an annual competition between several editors to see who can get the most Good Articles, Featured Article's, Did You Know's, etc. Based of this, we propose to you the GA Cup. This competition will only focus on reviewing Good articles.

For more info on the proposal, click here. As a FYI, the proposal page is not what the final product will look like (if you do go ahead with this idea). It will look very similar to WikiCup's page(s).

The discussion for the proposal will take place here. Please let us know if you are interested, have any concerns, things to consider, etc.

--Dom497, Figureskatingfan, and TheQ Editor

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles - GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup

WikiProject Good articles is holding a new competition, the GA Cup, from October 1, 2014 - March 28, 2015. The Cup will be based on reviewing Good article nominations; for each review, points will be awarded with bonuses for older nominations, longer articles and comprehensive reviews. All participants will start off in one group and the highest scoring participants will go through to the second round. At the moment six rounds are planned, but this may change based on participant numbers.

Some of you may ask: what is the purpose for a competition of this type? Currently, there is a backlog of about 500 unreviewed Good article nominations, almost an all time high. It is our hope that we can decrease the backlog in a fun way, through friendly competition.

Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors! Sign-ups will be open until October 15, 2014 so sign-up now!

If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the four judges.

Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To receive future GA Cup newsletter, please add your name to our mailing list.

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AT&T, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike McConnell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make the top of talk pages even longer than they are by adding information that isn't so important. It is only relevant to add a template when the article is in British English. Plus, I had to remove the banners because, in many talk pages, you added them within the wikiproject collapsible. Sorry for all the notifications Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 19:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I think if those tags were justified under WP:ENGVAR it was perfectly ok to place them. It is something I do myself from time to time. Tetra quark was just about to restore those tags, I think, weren't you? --John (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@John: Are you being sarcastic or something? No, I wasn't about to restore the tags Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 21:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Majoreditor, sorry you were bothered by this. --John (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic-Hierarchy.org

Hello. I noticed that you have edited a number of articles on Catholicism. A discussion is taking place as to whether the website Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a reliable source that can be utilized on Wikipedia or whether all references and information derived from it should be deleted. This topic is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [6]. As the website's removal as a reference will affect several thousand Wikipedia articles, I believe that the broadest range of opinions should be obtained before action is taken. Please contribute if interested.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

In a recent edit to the page University, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to India, use Indian English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 20:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Majoreditor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Chrysostom

Hi ManKnowsInfinity,

Thanks for the work on this article. I removed one of your edits because the material is covered elsewhere in the article. Please let me know if you want to discuss further, either here or on the article talkpage. Thanks, Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Majoreditor; Nice of you to get back on this. Recently in re-reading the Stephens biography on Chrysostom I noticed that his preference was to mention the Chrysostom writingof books in the process of covering Chrysostom's biography. This looked useful and when I checked other Wikipedia articles for the approach used in other good article and especially featured articles, then the preference was to name the works written in a short sentence in the biographical section of the article and then cover its interpretation and meaning in a separate section. After this I then added one short sentence to mention that Adv. Judaism was an early writing from the years of his Diaconate, and left the other interpretation section of the article to cover the details. If you are eventually planning to develop the Chrysostom article toward an FA article then perhaps some version of my small mention of this book possibly in your own words or version would move the article forwards to resemble other Wikipedia FA articles for its eventual upgrade. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Majoreditor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Boosterism

I'd like to call to attention the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University pages which had similar problems to the Emory University page in Academic Boosterism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_academic_boosterism). They use words such as "prestigious," "one of the best universities in the nation" etc. There needs to be consistency in the Wiki community as to how we allow subjective phrasing of these universities are. If Emory University had their sentences and sources deleted (for the SAME rankings of AWRU, USNEWS, etc.) other institutions should as well. University of Chicago resolved this problem by providing objective information as such: "It holds top-ten positions in various national and international rankings"

I brought this to attention for Columbia University and Princeton University both pages in which their sentences of academic boosterism has been deleted. We should do our best to provide as objective information as possible and do the same for the Berkeley and Stanford pages. I have made the changes, but they were undo-ed by other members. I do not want to engage in an edit war so I am informing you. I did edit one more time but I am refraining to do it a third time as per wiki policies. 68.65.67.46 (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list

Hi Majoreditor! It is a pleasure to meet you! The page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list has been recently updated with a much needed cleanup! I appreciate all of the work you have been doing on Catholic-related efforts on Wikipedia! If possible, feel free to browse and see some of the new changes going on within the portal! Twillisjr (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Majoreditor. 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]

Proposed deletion of File:Gregory.nazian.gif

The file File:Gregory.nazian.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Engagement.gif listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Engagement.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Reyk _YO! 00:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations \| June 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[asof-1] As of October 2, 2012 at 19:05 (UTC).

[2] Before quick-failing the article, verify that one of the several referencing templates is correctly placed at the bottom of the article. If the template is not placed, try to place it to see if references are displayed. If this proof returns no references, then proceed to quick-failing.

[1]

[2]