Jump to content

User:Majoreditor/Archive 3 (through Dec. 2007)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive #3 - through December 31, 2007


Thanks!

My RFA
I thank you for participating in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 60 supports, no opposes, no neutrals, and one abstain. Edison 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

80.229.222.48 not blocked

Yes, Rotten.com is generally perceived to be a shock site, but the page http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/religion/mother-teresa/ clearly is not pornography and therefore his/her actions do not fall under Wikipedia:Vandalism, but a content dispute instead. --  Netsnipe  ►  02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

My recent RfA

I am sorry you felt it necessary to oppose my RfA, which did not succeed, at this time. I will attempt to make some more mainspace edits and get some more experience before my next RfA, which will be in two month's time. I hope I will have satisfied your concerns by then, but if not, please comment as you feel you should. Thanks for your input. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 07:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

With thanks!   
Thanks for participating in my RfA, which closed successfuly.
I leave you with a picture of the real Blood Red Sandman!
Note his 'mop' is slightly deadlier than mine!
- - Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Dear Majoreditor, 
 ______  __                       __                               __     
/\__  _\/\ \                     /\ \                             /\ \    
\/_/\ \/\ \ \___      __      ___\ \ \/'\   __  __    ___   __  __\ \ \   
   \ \ \ \ \  _ `\  /'__`\  /' _ `\ \ , <  /\ \/\ \  / __`\/\ \/\ \\ \ \  
    \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \/\ \_\.\_/\ \/\ \ \ \\`\\ \ \_\ \/\ \_\ \ \ \_\ \\ \_\ 
     \ \_\ \ \_\ \_\ \__/.\_\ \_\ \_\ \_\ \_\/`____ \ \____/\ \____/ \/\_\
      \/_/  \/_/\/_/\/__/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/\/_/`/___/> \/___/  \/___/   \/_/
                                                /\___/                    
                                                \/__/                     

For your contribution to My RfA, which passed with 8000 Supports, 2 Neutrals and no opposes.

The standards and dedication of the English Wikipeidan Administrators is excellent and I am privileged to stand among them. Thankyou for putting you trust in me, I'll not see it abused. And now, I will dance naked around a fire. Party at my place! Cheers! Dfrg.msc 09:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Sorry, I don't have one of those fancy templates like above. Thanks for your comment in my RfA. I felt that it would be best to withdraw my nomination, since every comment said the same thing. I look forward to coming back sometime down the road. To be honest, I didn't think my (lack of) editing was going to be a reason for opposition. I admit, most of my edits were vandal reverting, and warning users (which is why I have a high user talk edit count), but I have made some good contributions to other pages (especially Big Brother (US) related pages. I guess they just blend in too much with everything else. Thanks again - Rjd0060 13:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Emory Alumni Section

That whole section needs to go. It was clearly written by the organization itself as advertising. There's no reason why any of it should exist in an encyclopedia article. Please write back to me if you see any reason for the section so remain. Nrbelex (talk) 04:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine by me. My instinct is to just delete it entirely as it really is a blatant misuse of Wikipedia, but either method should accomplish the same thing. Nrbelex (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Dearest Supporter,

Thank you for your participation in my RFA, which closed unsuccessfully with 39 supports, 15 oppose, and 1 neutral. I would have liked to gain some experience of being an admin, but it wasn't to be. At least I gained some valuable time there and will use my knowledge picked up to my next candidacy. I would like to say once again, thank you for voting and I hope to see you at my next request be it a nomination or self-induced, I hope I don't get as many questions!
Rudget Contributions 09:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carcharoth

Please refrain from making duplicate votes to RfA pages, such as you did to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carcharoth. Your most recent vote has been removed. I don't believe it was intentional, but please keep this in mind in the future. Thanks, Ksy92003(talk) 21:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops! Sorry, my bad. Didn't mean to.Majoreditor 22:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe no problem. I assume you just forgot you had already voted. I knew you had a duplicate vote because I saw User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report‎ (this diff) had shown that you had a duplicate vote. No worries. Ksy92003(talk) 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Saint Samson the Hospitable.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Saint Samson the Hospitable.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I see the the BetacommandBot often makes mistakes (see this for details.) Majoreditor 21:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My Questions

Wich questions do you think show a lack of ability to be able to communicate good? Where do you think I need to be more clear? I will try to re-word them. Thanks for you time:)--SJP 23:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The responses to quests 2 and 3 were weak. I'd suggest for question 2 a different response than "I suck at writing informative articles". Your response to question 3 is not well worded. Best of luck, no matter how this RfA turns out. Majoreditor 16:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My (KWSN's) RFA

Thank you for commenting my recent (and successful!) RfA. It passed at at 55/17/6. I'll try to make some changes based on your comments. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thanks for voting in my Rfa, which I withdrew from yesterday. Though I did not get promoted, I see this Rfa as being a success nonetheless. What I got out of this Rfa will help me to be a better, all around editor. Because of this Rfa I have decided to become better in other areas of editing. I'm not going to just be a vandalfighter. Though vandalfighting is good, being active in all areas of editing is even better. Have a nice day.--SJP 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

Thanks for your support with respect to my request for adminship, which successfully closed today with a count of 47 support, 1 oppose. If you ever see me doing anything that makes you less than pleased that you supported my request, I hope to hear about it from you. See you around Wikipedia! Accounting4Taste 05:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

My RFA
Thanks for participating in my request for adminship, which ended with 56 supports, one oppose, and one neutral. I hope to accomplish beyond what is expected of me and work to help those that lent me their trust. east.718 at 02:35, 11/4/2007

GlassCobra's RfA

My RFA
Hey Majoreditor! Thanks for supporting my request for adminship, which ended with 61 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I know that you thought I could have used a little more experience before applying, but I felt that with Endless November coming, we'll need all the hands we can get! I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified, and please feel free to call on me if you need any help or opinions! GlassCobra 00:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hierotheos athens.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hierotheos athens.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

OhanaUnited's RfA

Thanks for voting at my RfA. Unfortunately, the result stands at 51 support, 21 oppose and 7 neutral which means that I did not succeed. As many expressed their appreciation of my works in featured portals during my RfA, I will fill up the vacuum position of director in featured portal candidates to maintain the standards of featured contents in addition to my active role in Good articles. Have a great day. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

re: Issue with OR and Noteability

Glad to be of help. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Elias Chacour

Thanks for your contribution to the article. The edits you reverted, while made in good faith by some editor, were POV and full of weasel words like "very controversial" and "some ...". However, they did contain some useful information. I tried to salvage what I could; please let me know what you think. Cheers, Majoreditor 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While the article itself contains no more of those weasel words, I still don't think that the reference provided [1] qualifies as NPOV. The source text contained a summary of Chacour's speech in which the following statements were made regarding issues Chacour didn't speak about:
  • ...and how many Palestinians who "just want to return to their land" did not own the land but were instead tenants, often victimized by their own people.
The quote "just want to return to their land" is by Chacour and it seems to be used in a somewhat sarcastic sense. At the end of that sentence, the article offers a link to another article on the same website titled Whose Land Is It? [2]to offer an insight into the Israel-Palestine land dispute, which is one of the most hotly contested political and religious disputes in the last 60 years of history. That article, after explaining that Arafat refused Barak's offer in 2000, makes this overly simplified statement:
  • Apparently, the Palestinian leadership sought no fair two-state solution. They wanted everything—with no Israel at all.
Another statement in referenced text, again referring to what was not said in his speech, says:
  • Nor did he give any credence to the need today for a security barrier to protect Israelis from random and horrific terrorist attacks, and how that barrier has vastly reduced both Israeli and Palestinian deaths.
I just don't believe that this article is neutral enough to be given any weight as a useful reference. I won't remove it but I don't think it should stay. SWik78 19:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

my RFA

Thankspam

User:Neranei/adminthanks

Thanks!

Howdy Majoreditor, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.

--TeaDrinker 05:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Good ...

To be back. Thanks for the warm welcome on my return. Pastordavid (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey 'ere

Thank you very much for the hint on the guidelines. I'll get to work now!Vicius (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Nburden's RFA

Thanks for the advice, and your consideration. I appreciate it, and hope to continue to have a positive impact on the encyclopedia. Nburden (T) 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

About my edit to Christianity

I apologise for my previous edit to Christianity. Obviously I can't leave myself logged into Wikipedia and leave the computer while at school. I'll be sure to be more responsible for the future. Thankyou!--Supercraft99 22:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Christianity

Hi, thought I already responsed. The dispute seems to be over now. At least no one is putting that extremely non fitting {{hoax}} template on the article. I have the article on my watchlist now, I will try to keep an eye on it. Garion96 (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Pedro/RFA Standards

I have brazenly cut and paste your edits across. Thank you! Pedro :  Chat  13:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregory of Nazianzus

Yes, I think a recommendation/request for a main page feature would be a good idea. Either January 25 or January 2 would be appropriate. If you have time tonight, could you do the request? If not, I will get it tomorrow. And yes, we do need to find a good collaboration for WP Saints. Basil of Caesarea might be a good one, given our previous successes with similar figures? Its a decent start article, in desperate need of some clean-up, copy-editing, and further citation. Pastordavid 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the FA mainpage request process has changed since I put up the request for Maximus the Confessor. Only five date-specific requests can be up at once, and only 30 days prior to the date requested. I went ahead and put up a request for January 2, since there was an open slot today. Its at WP:TFA/R. Pastordavid 17:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'll pull together some resources as well. BTW, slightly outside of the scope of WP Saints, I recently did a complete re-write on Diodore of Tarsus. It seems like a figure you might be interested in, and anything you might be able to add/correct would be apprectiated. Pastordavid 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
It will probably never be more than a stub, but a put up a supporting article for our push on Basil. See Basil the Elder. Pastordavid 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

I, Durova, am pleased to award this triple crown to Majoreditor for outstanding contributions to Wikipedia's coverage of religion. Thank you for volunteering to build a better encyclopedia. DurovaCharge! 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, excellent work! DurovaCharge! 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Congrats. Well deserved. Pastordavid 15:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. John Carter 18:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter for December 2007

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Weekend Update

Hey ME, I seem to have come down with a little bug, so I didn't really get to either Basil or Gregory like I was planning this weekend. Apologies, but I'll get on it very soon. Pastordavid (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Emory Third Opinion

Couldn't find where the topic was brought up elsewhere so I'm posting here. That edit is clearly frat boosterism and doesn't belong. I would have reverted it as spam in a heartbeat. Nrbelex (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Thanks for offering your comment over at Purgatory. As you probably have noticed, things are pretty complex over there, and the article is kinda messy from having been a battleground for so long.

I was wondering if I could impose upon you, if you're feeling a tad braver, to give me some feedback on a rewrite I did. I tried, in so far as possible, to just go through and clean things up, doing some organizing, and trying hard to avoid unexplained jargon. I think it's simple and easy-to-understand, whereas the current version is likely to be very hard for a lay audience to understand on a first reading, ue to its widespread use of unexplained jargon. I filed an Earlier RFC, but it's sorta gotten buried beneath all the debating.

Do you think the proposed rewrite would be an improvement over the current version?

I _think_ every single sentence is the rewrite is verifiable, and furthermore, even though I haven't added the all cites in yet, I _think_ I know where to find a cite to justify every single sentence. I'd be willing to try to push this toward GA/FA if we can generate a consensus about the direction this thing should go and that the rewrite is a step in the right direction.

So far, all the experienced editors that have responded to my RFC thought the rewrite was, indeed, a step in the right direction, but some of the established editors on the page feel strongly the rewrite is unacceptable, so I don't want to make controversial changes without a firmer consensus.

Do you think the rewrite would be an improvement? --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to confess that it's difficult for me to make comparisons and provide feedback due to the frequent changes in the article. Perhaps I should wait; there may be too many cooks in the kitchen presently. Majoreditor (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, I think the opposite is true. The same three or four cooks have been fighting amongst themselves for the better part of a year, because it's all something they care about intensely. The only way the situation will ever get resolved is to bring enough eyeballs to bear on the situation that a consensus of uninvolved editors about what direction the page should take.
I started off, replying to an RFC a long long time ago, just offering comments, but that didn't resolve their dispute. When that didn't help, I wrote out a long list of suggestions, but even that didn't resolve the dispute. Finally, I agreed to put the time into writing out whole version of the page so people could see my suggestion on how to make a major improvement, but that two hasn't resolved the dispute.
At this point, I think the disputants are going to dispute indefinitely, and the only way to solve the problem is to get enough outside views that the "hard core" editors who are so passionately in disagreement become a minority, and the more uninvolved Wikipedia community can sort of settle it.
So, I'd encourage you to participate more, not less. That said-- I do realize it looks like a bit of a hornet's nest ,with edits flying back and forth and no consensuses ever getting reached, so I know that's a frustrating page to choose to help out on. If I knew then what I knew now, I myself might have picked a different RFC to respond to way back when, instead of trying to lend a hand with this one. <grin> --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, Alec. I'll try to help out in at least some small way. I'll examine the suggestions for the article's lead within the next few days and offer suggestions. Best of luck, Majoreditor (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

The Half Barnstar
In grateful appreciation for his cooperative editing at Gregory of Nazianzus it is my pleasure to award this half a barnstar to Majoreditor. As a sign of the cooperative editing, the other half of this barnstar resides with User:Jacob1207. Pastordavid (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Saint Basil

Majoreditor--thank you for your invitation to contribute to the article on Basil of Caesarea. I've made some edits, and was wondering if you would like to take a look and see if it was helpful. Thanks. MishaPan (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Basil Bibliography

Here's what I could find for some bibliographic recommendations. Caveat lector: I have not browsed any of these, just lifted them from various academics whose work I trust.

Ancient (There are probably some good basics in these):
  • Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 43: "On St. Basil the Great"
  • Gregory of Nyssa, Encomium on his Brother Basil"
  • Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 116
Modern
  • WKL Clark, St Basil The Great: A Study in Monasticism, (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1913)
  • MM Fox, The Life & Times of St. Basil the Great as Revealed in His Works, (Washington, DC:Catholic U of America, 1939)
  • PJ Fedwick, Basil of Ceasarea: Christian, Humanist, Ascetic, 2 vols, (Toronto:Pontifical Inst. of Medieval Studies, 1981)
  • A Meredith, The Cappadocians (London: Chapman, 1995)

That should get you started. Pastordavid (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainpage

We're a go for the mainpage for January 2, see Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 2008. Watch the article for additional vandalism, and hopefully helpful edits as well, that day. Pastordavid (talk) 17:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Majoreditor/Archive_3_(through_Dec._2007)&oldid=1090618725"