User talk:Majoreditor/Archive 7 (Jan. - June 2009)

DYK for Gregory II Youssef

On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gregory II Youssef, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

RFM

I began a Request for Mediation here [1] and listed you as a party. Please sign your name here [2] to agree to participate. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 06:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nancy. I don't know that I'll have much to contribute. Best of luck as you guys try to sort out matters. Majoreditor (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 21:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Image permission problem with Image:Archbishop-Cyril.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Archbishop-Cyril.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chonak (talk) 05:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Thanks

If I recall, while I was fighting at WP:GAR you lent a hand on this article. It has finally made it. Thanks for your encouragement and assistance along the way.

This user helped promote Jennifer Brunner to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Roman Catholic Church

Hi Majoreditor, I have made a motion to close the mediation for reasons described here [3]. Please come and post either your agreement or disagreement at the same link. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 17:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Bahinabai/1

I have replied to your query at the above mentioned page. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Have answered to your present-past query. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Naming Question

Hi Majoreditor. I note you voted that you would accept Option 1 in the RCC Lead poll. To explain my position, I do not support this, since I think it would only postpone the debate until the article came up for Featured staus again. Breaking the Wikipedia guidance that the title should appear first will just mean the whole wording row being raised again. Xandar 19:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

thankspam

Hi Majoreditor, very very belated thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed by an embarrassingly wide margin, there's a full glitzy Oscar style version of my acceptance speech here. Your comment "The candidate is helpful and a good contributor, although he is a tad inexperienced in certain admin-related areas and in content-building. I am convinced, however, that he'll be a net positive and won't abuse the tools." was most kind and I hope I don't disappoint you. So far I've only been getting involved in CSD where I'm getting a little more experienced in content building. PS I see you are interested in Eastern Christianity, have you come across User:A ntv? I've done some copy editing for A ntv recently but theology is not my strongpoint. ϢereSpielChequers 22:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wimpy?

Heh, that descriptive made me laugh. By the way, I noticed RCC related stuff on your talk page - I guess that will go on forever. Too much fighting on an important topic. Sigh. I am sad that I left all of that a while ago but I am sure I would only be more depressed if I stayed to watch the fighting continue. Meh. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the Christianity Barnstar

Thank you for the Christianity Barnstar. I've completed the bios of all the Mekite patriarchs, you could be interested in. Can you please have a look at them for checking and wordsmithing? thanks A ntv (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thankspam

Thanks to everyone who took the time and trouble to take part in my RfA whether support, oppose or neutral. All comments are valued and will be considered carefully in the coming weeks. Feel free to add more advice on my talk page if you think I need it. SpinningSpark 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) In case you're wondering, the image is a smiley, just a little more aesthetic, but not as serious as the Mona Lisa

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For your tireless work and for your contributions to Wikipedia edit after edit, keep up the good work! South Bay (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps update

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am contacting you because you have contributed or expressed interest in the GA sweeps process. Last month, only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process with 163 articles reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

All exempt articles that have reached FA status have now been moved to a separate section at the end of the running total page. I went through all of the members' running totals and updated the results to reflect the move. As a result your reviewed article total may have decreased a bit. After removing duplicate articles and these FAs, the running total leaves us at ~1,400 out of 2,808 articles reviewed.

If you currently have any articles on hold or at GAR, please consider concluding those reviews and updating your results. I'm hoping that this new list and increased efforts can help us to increase the number of reviews. We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you know of anybody that can assist please direct them to the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, will get an award when they reach that mark. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

A draft of the note under mediation is up for comments here [4]. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

GA Sweeps June update

Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 396 articles were swept in May! That more than doubles our most successful month of 163 swept articles in September 2007 (and the 2 articles swept in April)! I plan to be sending out updates at the beginning of each month detailing any changes, updates, or other news until Sweeps are completed. So if you get sick of me, keep reviewing articles so we can be done (and then maybe you'll just occasionally bump into me). We are currently over 60% done with Sweeps, with just over a 1,000 articles left to review. With over 40 members, that averages out to about 24 articles per person. If each member reviews an article a day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. I know that may be asking for a lot, but it would allow us to complete Sweeps and allow you to spend more time writing GAs, reviewing GANs, or focusing on other GARs (or whatever else it is you do to improve Wikipedia) as well as finish ahead of the two-year mark coming up in August. I recognize that this can be a difficult process at times and appreciate your tenacity in spending time in ensuring 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) 18:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC Mediation

Your input is needed here [5] to decide on one of three options. Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 03:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Nancy. I have just expressed my preference. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Rhinemaidens

Thanks. I'm very much the second author, but it's still nice to have some of my content featured. Now I've got to look back at User:Awadewit's suggerstions for Troilus where I am very much the first author.--Peter cohen (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RCC mediation

Sorry to bother you again, we now have an option 4 to consider since no one could agree on 1,2 or 3. Can you please come vote again? [6] Thanks, NancyHeise ^talk 18:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church mediation outcome

Hi, you are receiving this message because you were an original party to the mediation process regarding the Catholic Church name issue. The mediation outcome has been summarized and moved to the Catholic Church talk page here [7]. Please feel free to come join our discussion of the outcome taking place now before making the actual changes in the article. Thanks for your help and kind cooperation toward a mutually agreeable solution. NancyHeise ^talk 14:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)