MiguelJoseErnst

Hello, MiguelJoseErnst! I'm ulayiti, and I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you'll like the place enough to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• How to avoid common mistakes

When commenting on talk pages or voting, you should always sign your name by typing in four tildes (~~~~). This way people will know who made the comment and can respond to you. If you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me on my talk page. You can also have a look at the help pages or put up a question at the village pump. Welcome to Wikipedia, and happy editing! - ulayiti (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

High and Sung Mass

Hi there. I did some work on Sung Mass and looked at High Mass as well. I couldn't help but notice some odd parallels:

The Sung Mass is in many ways an aberration. It was intended for use in non-Catholic countries where the services of a deacon or a subdeacon (or clergy to fill these parts in the ceremony of the Mass) were not easily had. It was intended to be used in place of Solemn Mass on Sundays and major feast days.

The High Mass is in many ways an aberration. It was intended for use in non-Catholic countries where the services of a deacon & subdeacon (or clergy to fill these parts in the ceremony of the Mass) were not easily had. It was intended to be used in place of Solemn Mass on Sundays and major feast days.

As a layman, I find all the different masses quite confusing. Can we have some overview or something? Also, some might say that calling them "aberration" is subjective. Rl 20:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Maybe you can briefly explain the term so the laymen (most people who use Wikipedia) understands the meaning of this term in this context (something like "was in many ways an aberration and was not approved by the Holy See until about two hundred years ago.") ? Oh, and since you seem to be a rare expert on the subject, can you add a reference or two so readers and other editors know where they can learn more? Rl 07:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I fixed your user page, your Spanish needs more work Conquistador. Don't be discouraged though!--4.245.215.112 07:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Red & the Blue

A tag has been placed on The Red & the Blue, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 18:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Penn_pennant.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Penn_pennant.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Assumption of Mary

Hi, you are probably right about the image. Please see the talk page there, and provide a reference if available. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Fight on, Pennsylvania!

Please do not re-add the lyrics to this article. As you note in the article, the lyrics are copyrighted and copyrighted material cannot be added to Wikipedia - see the Terms of Use you agreed to when you created the article. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Then how are people supposed to know what the lyrics are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJoseErnst (talk • contribs)

You could link to a site that has the lyrics on them, if one exists, or reference a book that contains them. However you must not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia articles. Continuing to do so is disruptive and could lead to you being blocked from editing, to protect the encyclopedia. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, none of the school's websites have the full lyrics. BUT, I just did some double checking. "The Houston Club" was disbanded in 1929 and replaced by the Houston Hall Board--a separate entity. http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/features/studtorg/stugovt/housclub.html (paragraph 11). The name is sometimes used as a nickname for the student union (the wiki article on Houston Hall confirms this), but the corporate entity legally bearing that name no longer exists. The book I quoted from was published in 1924. If the Houston Club was abolished in 1929 then the copyright could not have been renewed. According to Cornell's Copyright Information Center website (http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm), the song is now be in the public domain. I will put the lyrics back up, but with an explanation. If you deem this is not enough, then I assume you will remove it and I will leave it be until I can find out any more.

Nomination of Fight on, Pennsylvania! for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fight on, Pennsylvania! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight on, Pennsylvania! until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. PGPirate 23:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ivy League

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ivy League. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. DMacks (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have cited a source for my edits. The person who has made changes has not.

You will need to get WP:CONSENSUS, not just assume that the ref you found is not easily disputed by the other editor based on some ref he will post (or that someone else will). As it says, "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." DMacks (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have disputed the neutrality of the article based on the order of alphabetization. It shows a bias toward Princeton.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ivy League". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 March 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Ivy League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Latin Mass

The article Latin Mass has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

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

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

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