This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majoreditor. 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.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations has recently exploded to 236 unreviewed articles! Out of 264 total nominations, 17 are on hold, 10 are under review, and one is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (47 articles), Film and cinema (25 articles), Television and journalism (16 articles), Art and architecture (15 articles), and Politics and government (14 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
Reviewer of the Month
Dihydrogen Monoxide is the GAN Reviewer of the Month of December, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 of the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Dihydrogen Monoxide hails from Brisbane (which, incidentally, is almost a GA, kids ;)) and has been editing Wikipedia since August 2006. He mostly likes to review articles relating to music, Australia, or anything else that takes his fancy! He also has two articles waiting, and notes that there's still a huge backlog,... so get cracking!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of December include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GAReview Template
Lots of you that frequent WP:GAN have undoubtedly seen the articles under review, marked with "Review - I am reviewing this article. ...". The articles have been marked as being under review by an editor using the {{GAReview}} template. The purpose of this template is essentially to prevent two editors from reviewing the same article at the same time, so it's essentially a common courtesy notice to other editors so that they don't pass or fail an article while you're in the midst of collecting and writing comments. However, just because an article is marked, shouldn't preclude another editor from contributing to the review. If you'd like to review it, go ahead; simply collect your comments and write them down on the article's talk page – but don't pass or fail the article – leave that to the other reviewer.
To use this template yourself, simply write "#:{{GAReview}} ~~~~" on the line immediately following the article's nomination at WP:GAN. You can even leave additional comments as well (e.g. "#:{{GAReview}} I will finish my review in the next 24 hours. ~~~~"). Reviewers marking articles with this template should also observe some common etiquette; please don't mark more than 1-3 articles as being under review at a time, and please try and finish your review within 3-5 days of marking the article.
GA Sweeps
After openly requesting the community for more participants into the Sweeps, we have 3 more members on the board. They are (in no particular order) Canadian Paul, VanTucky, and Masem. Canadian Paul will be sweeping "Middle East and the World" articles. VanTucky will be sweeping "Religion, mysticism, and mythology" and "Literature" articles. Masem will be sweeping "Television episodes". We're still looking for more reviewers. Interested individuals should contact OhanaUnited for details.
At this moment, participation in the sweeps project is by invitation only, as we desire experienced reviewers who have a thorough and extensive knowledge of the criteria. This is to ensure that articles that have "fallen through the cracks" would be found and removed, and that additional articles don't fall through the cracks during the sweep.
Currently, there are 16 members working on the project, and we have reviewed 74 articles in December 2007. Of those that are swept, 275 articles are kept as GA, 126 articles are delisted, and 5 promoted to FA.
Did You Know,...
... that the total number of good and featured articles is now over 5000?
... that GA was formed on October 11, 2005 and was formerly called "Half-decent articles"?
... that many discussions were made over the years on whether GA should have a symbol placed on the main article space, yet at the end always removed?
... that there was a proposal to change the GA symbol to a green featured star?
From the Editors
Happy New Year, everyone! I'm just filling in for Dr. Cash as he's busy (or away) in real life. This explains why I wasn't prepared for a full-length article on GA process, and instead I resort to a tiny DYK for GA.
OhanaUnited
Happy New Year as well! I'm still here, and haven't totally disappeared. I had to cut back on editing and reviewing during the month of December as I made the transition from Flagstaff, Arizona to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. But I should be about settled in the Keystone State, so I'll be contributing more to Wikipedia again in the new year. Thanks to OhanaUnited for putting together much of the content for this newsletter! He's been working hard with the Sweeps, and the 'Did You Know' section is also a great idea, so I think that will become a regular feature now! I also figured out how to have a collapsible newsletter, so that will change our delivery options a bit. Cheers!
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. Acalamari03:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to invite you to join the new task forces proposed in the Georgia WikiProject. We are currently looking for new members to join our proposed task forces and work groups. With your help we can make it one of the best WikiProjects. Remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Rudget!
Dear Majoreditor, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget.16:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
RfA thanks
Thank you...
...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.
This RfA thanks inspired by Kathryn McDinaha's, in turn inspired by several others after Phaedriels' original. Hoping we can all keep such inspiration of newcomers ongoing, I am, sincerely, John Carter (talk).
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 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)
Majoreditor/Archive 4 (Jan. - April 2008), I wish to tender my sincere thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 37 supports, 2 opposes, and 2 neutral. The results of the RfA are extremely bittersweet because of the recent departure of my nominator, Rudget. Hopefully I can live up to his and your expectations. I would especially like to thank Epbr123 and TomStar81 for mentioning that they were preparing to offer me a nomination. The past week has been one of the most stressful weeks in my life, and I appreciate your vote of confidence in me. If you ever need anything, just get in touch. -MBK00421:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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!
To get to your concerns: my problem with the prose itself also has to do with the length of the article. Because of the shortness, it feels (to me) like the prose jerks around. That could just be me personally, and if you don’t feel that way, I won’t argue the point with you. As far as the references go, that was an error: the vote should have been yay and I have corrected it. As I said, if you feel the artcile is sufficient as is to be GA, then please reinstate the nomination and I will let someone else review it. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Not a problem. I'll look forward to seeing the new article when it is updated and resubmitted. And, thanks for understanding about my error. I've just really started doing GA reviews in the last couple of days, and I'm already up to just about 15, but that in no way means that I am already an expert. -- jackturner3 (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
a thank you note
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)
RfA thanks
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
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‑melon15:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the external link because readers can access external maps by clicking on the link in the article's infobox. It offers a much larger assortment of maps. Thanks for the offer, but I'm not interested in joining the discussion.Majoreditor (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
AfD on TV network slogans...
You said: Merge per XSG. See the article on ABC slogans. Best to bundle them together rather than creating an article for each campaign. I thought of that, actually, but in that article, someone cited WP:BUNDLE, which seemed to counsel more AGAINST bunching them together, than for it--or at least, that was my interpretation. Obviously, YMMV... :) Gladys J Cortez03:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Since they were all slogans, all members of List of NBC slogans (or ABC, or CBS) I figured they were related...the bit in WP:BUNDLE that seemed relevant was If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately. Or to put it more succinctly, if you are unsure of whether to bundle an article or not, don't. It's not an earthshattering issue, by any means, but I'm trying to understand the subtleties of Wikipedia. I appreciate your help! Gladys J Cortez03:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply...I did consider doing it that way, but...well, then I did it the other way. Pretty much the whole boring story on THAT decision. :) The other consideration was that I did the nominations using Twinkle, and if there's a "list these deletions in one article" feature there, I haven't figured it out yet. :::runs off to RTFM:::: I'd go back and bunch them, but I'm just barely Wiki-markup-literate enough to do the basics, and if I undertook to change the location of all the AfD discussions, I'm fairly sure I'd make a ghastly mess of it. Gladys J Cortez04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
One of my favorite pictures
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)
Hypostasis
You were right to be suspicious. There is no way that works as a translation - I undid it. "Subsistence" is what is necessary for survival (food, etc), "substance" is being or essence. If it becomes a problem, I can find citations. Pastordavid (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
OhanaUnited's RFA
.: Thank you! :.
Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.
To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."
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 • Tok18:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
Sure. In my opinion, the facts like Abjad number for Allah is 66 requires secondary sources since otherwise it will be WP:OR, and someone who does not know anything about the arabic letters can not mechanically check it. For that matter I found a source for this and added it to the article(the source is now gone in the reverts). Now, there is a unicode thing which I think should be of a similar taste (though I don't know the details) but I am kind of sure that there are no reliable sources that explicitly talk about typography of Allah (I searched a lot for it). --Be happy!! (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Nun
Hi. I noticed your previous work on the article Nun. We are trying to build consensus as to whether or not the article has NPOV. One editor has placed a neutrality tag on the article and objects to its removal. Would you mind having a look at the article (Nun) and leaving your opinion on the talk page (Talk:Nun#Neutrality_Tag). Thank you! Dgf32 (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,647 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 185 unreviewed articles. Out of 237 total nominations, 42 are on hold, and 10 are under review. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (39 articles), Theatre, film, and drama (34 articles), Transport (23 articles), Music (21 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Culture and society (13 articles), Places (13 articles), and World history (12 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
Two members joined the sweeps team this month. They are Jwanders and jackyd101. Jwanders swept Physics sub-category quickly and is now sweeping "Astronomy and astrophysics". Meanwhile, jackyd101 is sweeping "Armies, military units and legal issues".
During February, 66 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 33 were kept as GA, 21 delisted, 17 currently on hold or at GAR, and 1 was exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Blnguyen is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for February, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Blnguyen is from South Australia and has been editing Wikipedia since 2005. He was also the reviewer for the month of December 2007, so this marks the second time that he has been GAN's Top Reviewer for the Month. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for February!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
In this issue, we will focus on one of the requirements for good articles: a good article article should follow Wikipedia's guideline on lead sections. So what does this guideline say, why does it say what it does, and how can good article reviewers help?
The lead section is particularly important, because for many readers, it is the only part of the article which they will read. For instance, they may have come to the article by following a wikilink in another article simply to obtain a quick overview before they continue reading the original article. They may only read the first paragraph, or even the first sentence. On the other hand, one of the joys of Wikipedia is the way that it embodies the endlessly branching tree of knowledge; if a lead is well written, it may encourage even such a reader to read on and learn something new.
This is reflected in the terminology: "lead" is a word taken from journalism, where it recognized that many readers will only read the beginning of a newspaper article, and so it is important to convey the key points first, before going into detail. Note that "lead", in this sense, is pronounced as in "leading question" and is sometimes spelled as "lede" by journalists to distinguish it from lead, the metal, which was once very important in typesetting. Wikipedia supports both spellings.
Wikipedia:Lead section is written with all this in mind, and describes two different roles for the lead: first, it should introduce the topic; second it should summarize the article. This is not always as easy as it seems; indeed, it is almost impossible to write a good lead if the article itself does not cover the topic well. It has a side benefit that an article which satisfies this guideline is probably also broad: if the lead is both a good introduction and a summary, then the article probably covers the main points.
The good article process is often the first place in which an article is judged against this criterion, yet many current good articles may not meet it. A common fault is that the lead is purely an introduction, while the rest of the article contains other information, which should be summarized in the lead, but isn't.
So, how can reviewers help to improve this? One approach is to read the rest of the article, and not the lead, first. Make a note of the significant points discussed in the article. There is usually at least one important issue in each section. Then, go back to the lead and ask the following questions:
Does the first sentence of the lead define the topic, as described in the article?
Is the most important information mentioned in the first paragraph?
Is the lead a suitable length for the article? The lead guideline recommends 2–4 paragraphs depending on the article length, but judgment is more important than counting.
Are each of the significant topics that you noted mentioned in the lead?
If the answer to each of these questions is "yes", then the article probably meets the guideline. If not, you may be able to fix it yourself by summarizing the article. If you can't, then it suggests that there are not only problems with the lead, but also the rest of the article. That is the beauty of Wikipedia:Lead section.
Finally, there isn't universal agreement on whether the lead should contain inline citations. As long as the material in the lead is developed and cited elsewhere in the article, then inline citation is not required. There are exceptions, the most significant being quotations and controversial material about living persons.
Good luck helping more articles meet this important criterion!
From the Editors
Well, this is somewhat GA-related but at the same time not totally GA-related. However, I think this is important. Thanks to everyone who supported me at my 2nd RfA. It passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. As many are impressed by my work in Good Articles processes, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone giving me a very enjoyable time at GA. There are 2 people that I want to explicitly say thank you to. They are Nehrams2020 and Epbr123. They patiently taught me how to do GA reviews properly in summer 2007. I couldn't achieve better without them. Now that I have the mop and the bucket, some of my time will be working on reducing Commons image backlog. Nevertheless, you will still see me once in a while in matters related to GA.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
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)
Rhododendron and rhododendrons
Thanks for your query - I remembered the answer as soon as I saw your note. By convention when the names of genera are used they are capitalised and italicised, however when used as common names (and Rhododendrons is a common usage in the UK too), using the plural usually indicates a common name rather than a scientific one. Thus Rhododendron sp but rhododendrons. I should have remembered that before doing my edit - dooh! The real reason for my edit was to correct the spelling rhododendrum. Velela (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
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!
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)
Good to see you are back. I have worked a bit more on the article and it may or may not be ready for GA nomination. (?) --Be happy!! (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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)
Riana's request for bureaucratship
Dear Majoreditor, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats. I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight. I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community. I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Help for NPOV on Atheism
Majoreditor. I have looked at GAR and FAR archives and you are one of the Wikipedians who best fight for Neutrality. Your help is needed at Atheism where the article sounds as an apology of Atheism and worse, it is a Featured Article! The editors are strongly against any change. They are propose a very minor compromise in the form of linking to Criticism to Atheism.
I told them the article on atheism "should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," "in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." (NPOV)
Hi Majoreditor, thanks for supporting my RfA, which passed with 42 supports, 0 opposes,
and 0 neutrals. Special thanks goes to my nominator, Kakofonous. I'm pleased that
the Wikipedia community has trusted me with the mop and I take it very seriously.
Cheers!
Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]07:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Majoreditor. You have new messages at Rudget's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi, I reviewed the article and wrote my idea on the talk page of the article. I wait for copy-editting. --Seyyed(t-c)05:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, In my view it's a good article. But former reviewer has mentioned some problems which you can see here. Thanks--Seyyed(t-c)18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting! It's nice to have finally got an FA; you beat me to it with Gregory of Nazianzus last year. ;-) Anyway, it's good to hear from you again, and I hope you had a good Easter. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sean "Connery > Penn" Williams
Thank you! Your comment prompted me to check, and I saw that the user responded to my question, and I was forced to change my ‰vote; I may have gone too far though… x-} -- Avi (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
There are currently 3,868 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 195 unreviewed articles. Out of 267 total nominations, 57 are on hold, 13 are under review, and 2 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film and drama (27 articles), Sports and recreation (25 articles), Transport (24 articles), Music (19 articles), War and military (19 articles), Politics and government (18 articles), Religion, mysticism and mythology (16 articles), Literature (14 articles), World history (14 articles), and Video and computer games (14 articles).
The GA Sweeps process is progressing nicely! During the month of March, a total of 92 articles were reviewed. Of that total, 74 were found to continue to meet the GA criteria, and 18 were delisted. There are currently 14 articles that are still on hold in this process, awaiting revisions. Congratulations to Nehrams2020 (talk·contribs), who sweeped a whopping 51 articles during the month! Jackyd101 (talk·contribs) also deserves congrats for sweeping a total of 26 articles!
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
To delist or not to delist, that is the question
So you’ve found an article that, on the face of it, does not merit its good article status. What next? Especially where there are many glaring issues that need addressing, it’s tempting to just revoke its GA status and remove it from the list, but although we are encouraged as editors to be bold, this approach (known to some as "bold delisting") is not recommended good practice. There are many reasons why a listed article might not meet the assessment criteria—it’s always possible that it never did, and was passed in error, but more likely the criteria have changed or the article quality has degraded since its original assessment. Either way, we should treat its reassessment with no less tact and patience than we would a fresh nomination.
This, in fact, provides a good starting point for the delisting process. Approach the article as though it has been nominated for GA review. Read it and the GA criteria carefully, and provide a full reassessment on the article talk page. Explain where and why the article no longer meets the criteria, and suggest remedies.
Having explained why the article no longer meets current GA criteria, allow its editors time to fix it! In keeping with the above approach, it may help to treat the article as on hold. There is no need to tag it as such, but give editors a reasonable deadline, and consider helping out with the repair work. Bear in mind that more flexibility may be required than for a normal hold—the editors did not request or expect your reassessment and will probably have other projects taking up their time. They may not have worked on the article for months or even years, and at worst the article may have been abandoned and its authors no longer active. As always, communication is the key. It sometimes helps to post messages to relevant WikiProjects (found at the top of the article talk page), or to contact editors directly (this tool is useful for identifying active editors for any given article).
Only once the above process has run its course, and sufficient improvement has not been forthcoming, is it time to think about delisting the article. Communicate your final decision on the article talk page, even if there was no response to your reassessment and hold, and take the time to fill in the various edit summaries on the article talk and GA list pages to ensure the delisting is transparent and trackable. If you have any doubts about your final decision, you can list the article at Good article reassessment or contact one of the GA mentors, who will be happy to advise.
Article reassessment is perhaps the single most controversial function of our WikiProject, and the one with the most potential to upset and alienate editors. Yet it is one of the most necessary too, since without the ability to revoke an article’s status we would be unable to maintain quality within the project. However, if we approach reassessment sensitively and with the goal of improving articles to the point where sanctions are unnecessary, we will ensure that delisting is the last resort, not the first.
As we near the 4,000 Good Articles milestone, the project continues to grow and to gain respect in the Wikipedia community. Nevertheless, we continue to have a large backlog. If every member of WikiProject Good Articles would review just one article each day during the month of April, the backlog would be eliminated!
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;) EyeSerenetalk17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
thank spam
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Majoreditor. 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.
, 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)
Thank you! 
