User talk:Majoreditor

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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 (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)

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

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)

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)

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 Thanks! NancyHeise ^talk 01:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have been asked 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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).

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)