Njamesdebien
Welcome to Wikipedia!!!
edit
|
Kukini 05:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC) ==Please Use Edit Summaries==
Zpb52 02:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC) ==Please Use Edit Summaries==
Fr Ted Kennedy
editPlease review our guideline at WP:BIO and the criteria for speedy deletion at WP:CSD. Nothing in your Fr Ted Kennedy article meets the criteria for keeping. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Please give us something to hang this on. He just seems to be a well-meaning priest. There are thousands of those. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
hi -- no, the sandbox isn't suitable for development, since it gets used by a lot of people and deleted quickly. Zoe definitely moved quickly on your first attempt, but if you glance through Special:Newpages you will see what people doing Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol are up against -- there is a ton of stuff created all the time, and much of it includes biographies of bands that formed yesterday, or of high-school teachers, or games made up in school. As Zoe said, it wasn't clear that Fr Kennedy was more than a priest with good intentions, so it got zapped. (Please remember WP:AGF, a core tenet of wikipedia, and don't hold it against her!) The best way to avoid that is to be clear (with references) about notability right off the bat. As for development, I have two suggestions: first, you can make any page you want under your username, for example, User:Njamesdebien/Ted Kennedy, and then when it's in a shape you like you can copy it the the main namespace (just cut and paste). Or, and this is somewhat easier, you can start a new page, edit at will, and use "Show preview" instead of "Save page". You'll get to see what it will look like, and no one else will see it until you've saved it. (Of course, if your computer crashes in that time, you'll lose it!) I think you're off to a good start. Let me know if you have questions -- although I'm not an admin, just an editor like you! If you need more than I can provide, or if you're really stuck, you can put {{helpme}} on your own page and someone will stop by. bikeable (talk) 05:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- "Recent changes patrol" is pretty fascinating, yes, but it also gets tiring quickly. The deletion tag on your page was a speedy delete tag, as opposed to a formal articles for deletion tag (or a proposed deletion tag) -- take a look through and you'll quickly become familiar with those. You have the power to add a speedy-delete tag to any page you think meets the WP:CSD criteria; you are technically able to remove them as well, but it's not considered appropriate for the author of an article to do so (which is why I did so for Father Kennedy). You'll find that you have a tremendous amount of power as an editor to nominate things for deletion, to remove deletion tags, to change almost anything you want... but you should always have a good reason for doing so, and it's best to mention the reason in the edit summary. (when in doubt, read the appropriate page describing the appropriate policy over again before taking action!) Wikipedia runs on the good faith of editors who have a lot of power, and the ones who abuse it tend not to last very long. anyway, enjoy exploring, have fun, and let me know if you need a hand. bikeable (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Luther as Monk
editThanks for joining the discussion at Martin Luther. The problem here is the opposite. Luther makes much about becoming a monk, and, to be honest, I have not seen a single reference to him as a friar. It would be jarring to me not to call him a monk. It begins with Luther in the thunderstorm when he said, "Help, St. Anne! I'll become a monk." He talks about the severe austerities he undertook to please God and says thet the other monks told him to lighten up. He later goes after monastic vows in several treatises. In short, it is about his identity. I can provide a few citations and some suggested reading, if you like, and I'll look for references to him as a friar, if you'd find that helpful. I am a librarian, after all!
By the way, would you take a look at the article I've started on Uwe Siemon-Netto. It needs work and expansion and the eyes of a journalist on an article about an editor and correspondance would be very valuable to me. Bob --CTSWyneken 12:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I served for seven years as a Lutheran pastor before coming to the Seminary. I've served as Electronic Resources Librarian here for thirteen years. I do some preaching on the weekends and joke around about literally being a "minister without portfolio" at my home parish. I also teach a class now and again for Concordia University Wisconsin, for whom I'm working up an online course. I also write occaisonally for the Lutheran Witness, our church body's national magazine.
- Siemon-Netto's career has been in print media, mostly for German newspapers and magazines. He's now "retired," only working as a senior religion editor for UPI, a freelance correspondent and commentator and heading up a lay vocation institute in St. Louis and a Journalism institute at Concordia University -- Bronxville, New York. What I'm looking for is to do him justice. G' Day!--CTSWyneken 13:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Howdy!
editI would be happy to try to help you, but sorry, I am not an administrator in Wikipedia. I have found a number of administrators very helpful. This one is one of the kindest and most helpful [1]. If she cannot help you, I am sure she will guide you to help. You might also want to consider using the "helpme" request mentioned above in the welcome box. Best, Kukini 03:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
James Goold
editSorry, the removal of most of the info was a mistake. I'm not sure what happened there. What I was attempting to do was remove Category:Augustinian Order. He's already in Category:Augustinians, which is a subcat of Cat:Augustinian Order. He doesn't need to be in both. -- Necrothesp 10:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi. I think what I did was manage to edit an earlier version of your article by mistake, thus deleting everything you'd written since. Apologies again. Yes, our cathedral was destroyed in the Blitz. Sadly, unlike the Frauenkirche in Dresden, the new Coventry Cathedral looks like a giant aircraft hangar. Not pretty, even if vaguely interesting!
Incidentally, was Goold known by his full name or was he simply known as James Goold? If the latter the article should be moved to James Goold, since we use the common name for articles (you may well already know this, but I just thought I'd check). Cheers. -- Necrothesp 12:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough. You know more about it than I do and a lot of people did use their full names in the 19th century. I just thought I'd check as many people don't realise that Wikipedia policy is to use only the commonly used name not the full name, and I've moved quite a few articles for this reason. I've created a redirect from James Goold. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Competition Houses
editG'day! Yes actually, I am a recent student. And yes, the houses still do compete in things like debating, performing arts and music as well as a few other things. I apologize if I removed what you wrote; I'll re-edit the St. Augustine's College, Brookvale to include these things. Thanks for bringing it up.
Nice job with what you've done in that article, by the way. Nice work!
Premonstratensian / Augustinian
editHi. I notice that you have added the category: Augustinian monasteries/nunneries to the Premonstratensian houses. While of course you are quite correct that the Prem'ns used the Aug'n rule, it is superfluous to add the extra category, as Prem' entries are already sub-cats of the corresponding Aug'n ones, and the general convention is not to add a parent category when the existing sub-cat is adequate, as is the case here. Best,Staffelde 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Augustinian nuns
editI noticed you seem to be orphaning this category (removing all links to it). Why is that? Is there a discussion I missed? It strikes me as a useful category, but I don't edit many religion articles, so it's quite likely I've missed something. In the future it would be great if you could use edit summaries to let other editors know what your intent is. Cheers, Mak (talk) 06:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see. The categories are more often than not a huge tangled web that doesn't lead where you want it to lead. I originally put Vittoria Aleotti into the category of Augustinian nuns since the category tree seemed to go Category:Nuns -> Category:Roman Catholic nuns -> Category:Augustinian nuns. I never quite know what to do about category trees. Also, I see that you do some singing, User:Peirigill is working on making Gregorian chant a Featured article, and I'm sure he'd really appreciate any comments you could give. Welcome, and if you have any admin-needs, feel free to ask me (although I might not be on, since I live on the other side of the world) Cheers, Mak (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Missionary
editWell, having seen some of your work, if I remember correctly all on various religion-related pages, I can sort of return the complement, I like much of what I see and, even better, dislike unusually little of it - with this small technical remark: if you're going to make a series of changes to the same page, please try to keep pondering for a while before saving every single word of phrase, the present unnecessarily long lists are hell on the the page history and a terrible waste of memory (Wikipedia is short of capacity as it is, even has periodic related break downs).
You're right that the eastern religions were there as a section stub, and experience shows (I seem to have my account about a year longer then you and build up a watchlist of over 5200; it seems to have worked on this very age before, on Orthodoxy if I recall right) that often works as a trigger to get things going, so I intend to put a 'teaser' back in. Obviously Eastern religions is an option as section title, but I believe (if you can disprove it, please do, I'm eager to learn) it's wider then those I meant, for which I saw the term Dharma religions; I could be dead wrong here, but I don't think Confucianism, Shinto or Taoism, to name some major (Far) Eastern ones, have a missionary tradition, while some hard to classify syncretisms (e.g. Moon sect) do.
As for the 'other Christian' churches, just putting them up as subsections on equal footing with the major churches makes them look more like (just as) Christian, not less, so if you want to drive the dispute point home, and I'm not against that, we better think of another group heading (psychological offset bonus: they get smaller and lower-ranking individual headings), perhaps 'other churches' (without Christian, one can read it as non-Christian or as non-mainstream) and perhaps follow it by a notice stating the disputed status; if you want my five cents on the two concerned (here, I'm not intending to enter such usually hopeless debates) while both seems to me shamelessly exploited flocks of sincere believers, which makes them technically 'misguided Christians', and by most legal definitions churches, but while the Witnesses are as Bible-obsessed as one can get, the Mormons make an utter mockery of the Bible by adding a 'Book of Mormon' that doesn't even qualify as apocryphical but would lack minimal credibility even as SciFi because of its absurd pseudo-historical fiction from cover to cover, so they can best be considered a syncretism (albeit with the founding prophet's drug-induced lunacy, not with another religion) Fastifex 07:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
we could use your help standing up to ...
edit... User:Exploding Boy at the homophobia article. i tried to insert the word "pejoratively" in a sentence that says that homophobia may be referred to "opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral, or political grounds". he won't have it. i already reported him as a WP:3RR violator. r b-j 05:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Offer to help
editI have lots of images of religious items in central Mexico... tell me what you need and I will try to sort some images. Visit my user page and follow link to gallery, you may find something there. --tomascastelazo 22:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Invitation
editG'day. I've seen you around RCC pages and other traps and would like to offer you an invitation to become a member of WikiProject Catholicism. I'm not really that active on it, but I'm sure you'd both enjoy it and be a valued member. Cheers and Have a Good One, Jpeob 14:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- It's basically a way of organising people who are editing Catholic articles on WP. For example, the Catholic Collaboration of the Week enables group editing on the one article every week. You can also vote for which articles should become CCOTW. There is a To do list which you can add to as well as the ability to raise your concerns about standards of CC articles on the talk page. Cheers, Jpeob 07:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Cool. That's great. Have fun! Jpeob 01:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
just a note on Augustinians self-editing
editG'day. I first placed this on User:Mitch119's talk page.
It is admirable to ask people if they would like to become members of the project. However, when people are writing about themselves or their own actions, they must always follow the policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As long as people write with a Neutral point of view and verify their additions by Citing Sources, then it's a positive addition. I'm sure there will be no revert wars but i just thought i'd put it on the table that when people who have a vested interest in certain articles are being asked to contribute they must be told of the of the paramaters in which the community works. Have a good one, Jpeob 01:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- No I'm not talking about you nor any deficiency on Augustinians! Merely making the point that if you are to invite new members who may have a vested interest in what they're editing - then they should know the rules. Accuracy is always the aim. Don't worry, you're doing great work. Keep it up. Jpeob 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!
edit
Hello, Njamesdebien, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! —Mira 21:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Referencing ADB and DAB
editHi Cor Unum. I have edited two Archbishops of Sydney recently: William Grant Broughton and Roger Bede Vaughan. In both cases, I have standardised (not deleted) the references to Serle's Dictionary of Australian Biography (Angus and Robertson, 1949) and the Australian Dictionary of Biography (Melbourne University Press).
The Dictionary of Australian Biography (DAB) has a template. This has been developed for the /Australian Dictionary of Biography to-do - transfering the contents of the public domain Australian Dictionary of Biography into Wikipedia. Using the template means that the article automatically appears in the category Category:Dictionary_of_Australian_Biography. You can see the template on either of the two biographies, or on the to-do page referenced above.
The Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB) provides an accurate reference at the bottom of each article. The ADB asks that you cite the author (ie the print ref). I make the article title (lastname, firstname, (birth - death)) into the link to the on-line version.
So, not deleted, just tidied up.
You have been doing great work on the Australian Catholic biographies. I noticed that you often make a lot of small changes very rapidly. Be aware that some people may view that as a technique to try to avoid being reverted. You might want to use the 'show preview' button instead, and then commit your changes (via 'save page') in one or two larger chunks. --Jonathan O'Donnell 20:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 04:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Villanova College
editMay I ask, are you even an oldboy of the school? If you have ever heard Fr Morahan (Rector) speak about any St Augustine Tours, he refers to augies as our brother school. I believe he should be quite the expert. Also, Loreto IS the official sister school of VIllanova. The fact that they are up the road contributes largely to the reason why. Yet again, ask Fr Morahan. Also, the terms "brother" and "sister" schools are now generally used by Catholic schools to nominate a school of equivalence ie Loreto is sister because the students are female, and when females are required for something, Loreto is used, whereas St Augies is sister school in the Augustinian sense, but generally referred to as a brother school because of, yes, the MALE POPULATION!!!!
If you perhaps happened to be enrolled in the school at the moment, and of a leadership position, you might know these things.
Augustine of Hippo
editYou reverted my correction to this article (that Augustine was educated in Africa rather than Italy), claiming you had information to the contrary and that I needed to cite sources. I think it's clear enough from Augustine's own writings that he completed his studies in Madauros and Carthage, then taught rhetoric in Tagaste, Carthage, Rome and Milan. Here are a few relevant excerpts from the Confessio:
- "For that year were my studies intermitted: whilst after my return from Madaura (a neighbour city, whither I had journeyed to learn grammar and rhetoric), the expenses for a further journey to Carthage were being provided for me; and that rather by the resolution than the means of my father, who was but a poor freeman of Thagaste."
- "In those years when I first began to teach rhetoric in my native town..."
- "Thou didst deal with me, that I should be persuaded to go to Rome, and to teach there rather, what I was teaching at Carthage."
- "I began then diligently to practise that for which I came to Rome, to teach rhetoric..."
Furthermore, here are some passages from Augustine's bio in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
- "Patricius, proud of his son's success in the schools of Tagaste and Madaura determined to send him to Carthage to prepare for a forensic career."
- "...and he was still a student at Carthage when he embraced error. His studies ended, he should in due course have entered the forum litigiosum, but he preferred the career of letters, and Possidius tells us that he returned to Tagaste to 'teach grammar.' . . . Soon afterwards Augustine went to Carthage, where he continued to teach rhetoric."
- "He had only just arrived in Rome when he was taken seriously ill; upon recovering he opened a school of rhetoric, but, disgusted by the tricks of his pupils, who shamelessly defrauded him of their tuition fees, he applied for a vacant professorship at Milan, obtained it, and was accepted by the prefect, Symmachus."
I have seen no source or secondary work that contradicts any of this. Unless you've seen something saying otherwise, it seems uncontroversial enough to mention in the article without citation. If you do have information to the contrary, you should post it on the article's discussion page for consideration by other editors.
Archbishop Vaughan
editThanks for re-adding the succession box, my bad. Apologies for increasing your workload!
I didn't "delete" the ADB link, it was already mentioned in references so I considered it redundant. I've got no problem with it being in both sections though.
Original Sin: Actual and Original sin
editOriginal sin is the sinful condition of a person, and actual sin is the sinful acts that such a fallen person commits. I like what you have done to enhance this article. Please look at the actual sin article. To use another analogy: original sin is the disease while actual sin (acts of sin) is the symptoms. I think that you did a good job of explaining what is meant by the term "personal," pointing to the fact that we are born into it rather than committing it.--Drboisclair 17:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Augustine
editThank's for the head's up! I'll try to get a look at it sometime soon. All of a sudden I'm very busy in real life, which definitely has slowed down my wikilife. --CTSWyneken(talk) 11:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I was intrigued by this new spirituality to the point of removing a red link in the original sin article by creating a new article for original blessing. Please have a look at it. I have provided an outside link to an article/interview with Fox.--Drboisclair 15:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- "You're welcome!" is my response to your comment. There is some truth to Fox's position about the relative goodness of God's creation. After all, Augustine believed that evil was pure nihilism, non-existence, while goodness is always something positive. The fact that the devil exists is something good about him.--Drboisclair 18:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Australian/British vs. American date format
editGreetings, Cor.
You are correct, my editing of James Cardinal Freeman's article was a goof. Not a goof of malice or ignorance (for proof, see my edit of Adam Stansfield that was done around the same time), but a slip of the finger. I use an external editor that I developed myself, and it takes a parameter that lets it link and convert all dates to either British or American format, and I messed up the parameter in Freeman's article. Sadly, your edit is not the correct answer, either. Please see WP:DATE for an explanation. By piping the date, like [[19 November|19th of November]], you prevent the readers' date preferences from working ([2]). I will correct the article.
Please note that setting the date preferences can confuse an editor; unless you are viewing the article in edit mode, you cannot tell which format was used by the last editor, and therefore cannot tell which format will be seen by readers who have not set their preferences. This probably aided in the goof, since I saw American-style dates after I had edited the article, but that was expected because of my preference settings. Of course, sometimes it is difficult to make the call on date format, e.g. for an English footballer who spent much of his career playing in the US. I then try to follow the predominant style of the article. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and please let me know if you still have any questions about dates, or any other aspect of Wikipedia. Chris the speller 16:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Dates
editI see you are new to Wikipedia, so let me explain. There are two ways you can do dates:
- The American way: January 22 1896
- The British/Australian way: 22 January 1896
But you cannot use the formula "22nd of January, 1896" as you did at the Gilroy article. This is a long-established convention, as you will see if you look at a few articles. Adam 11:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- FWIW, the relevant house-style guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Cor, you seem to be fully qualified to discuss this on the talk page for WP:DATE, which would be a better place than my talk page. I'm not just trying to shuffle you off, but that would be the place to try to build consensus for a 3rd alternative, or to request another choice for date display preferences. You are welcome to discuss this or other matters on my talk page, and I am interested in the outcome of this topic, but please understand that the situation will not change just because of any discussions on my talk page. As before, please consider me a resource when you need one. Chris the speller 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Another thought. We Americans are certainly OK with "the 22nd of January", and it's often the way we speak. Our national holiday, officially "Independence Day", is referred to in actual practice 99% of the time as "The fourth of July", though occasionally in commerce as "Closed for the July 4th holiday", so "the 22nd of January" does not grate on our ears, and we sometimes say it in that format, but usually write it as "January 22" or "1/22/07". However, Wikipedia strives for a certain encyclopedic tone, and not all aspects of colloquial spoken English are considered appropriate in Wikipedia. Chris the speller 18:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice work. You have improved the page Cor Unum 12:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm still new at this though; still learning the ropes. =)
- Kguirnela 03:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Diocesan Infobox
editTo the Members of the WikiProject Catholicism
I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!
Re: Richard Connolly
editHi! I've just recently begun "watching" this page and realised that it has been tagged for deletion. I do not know anything about this person. You may find the discussion for deleting this article here. Please check it out. I thought of notifying you since you've created the article.
In case you're wondering how I came across this article, I'm working on the recently begun Christian music portal and have just added this page to the worklist of the portal. :) Do head over to the portal page and help out in any way you can, if you have the time. Thanks. God bless and happy Wiki-ing!!! aJCfreak yAk 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Pictures of interest
editHi there, please go to [3] and look at some of the religious photographs. Look in the Atotonilco folder. It is a 16th or 17th century church in Atotonilco, Guanajuato, Mexico. The mural and ceiling are beautiful. I will be uploading more pictures to that page, and I am willing to upload some here upon your request. Pleaswe email me at tomascastelazo@hotmail.com.--tomascastelazo 22:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Njamesdebien!
| You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity
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) 11:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
St Mary's Cathedral Choir
editI'm very curious about your edit. The addition of the word "presently" indicates that the choir has not always been a traditional mens and boys choir, but that it is either a recent innovation, or about to change. As far as I know the choir has been of the traditional type for many decades. (I'm not sure how many.) If this long-standing tradition is about to change, then the insertion of the word "presently" is not an adequate way to indicate this. Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- While I realise that there are several choirs, the choir known as the St Mary's Cathedral Choir is a traditional English cathedral choir of men and boys. The other choirs go by different names. If it has been a mens and boys choir since 1955, then it has over fifty years standing as a traditional cathedral choir. The word "presently" is indicative of something rather less stable. I think you could improve the wording a bit. Amandajm (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just looked at your change. You had altered "presently" to "now". That makes it look as if it became a mens and boys choir last week, at the very latest! While I realise that in journalism the "Now!" is an attention grabber, this is not what encyclopedic writing is about. The statement is perfectly and undeniably true. But the impression that the word conveys "now" is an inaccurate one. I have fixed it. Amandajm (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Would you please make the appropriate change? Amandajm (talk) 10:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
File:Augustinchoir.jpg listed for deletion
editAn image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Augustinchoir.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. Shubinator (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Augustinchoirinchapel.JPG
edit
Thank you for uploading File:Augustinchoirinchapel.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shubinator (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of File:Augustinchoirinchapel.jpg
edit
A tag has been placed on File:Augustinchoirinchapel.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shubinator (talk) 16:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:Redlandsociety.jpg
edit
Thank you for uploading File:Redlandsociety.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shubinator (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
File copyright problem with File:MendelOpening.jpg
edit
Thank you for uploading File:MendelOpening.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shubinator (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Ichthus: January 2012
edit |
ICHTHUS |
| January 2012 |
In this issue...
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
edit
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.
You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 13:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
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) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Augustinians article reestructure
editHello Njamesdebien, I am currently proposing a major change in the Augustinians articles and I have noted that you have contributed a lot to some of them. Could you give it a look to the proposal and maybe comment on it? It includes the article about Independent Augustinians that you started. Thank you so much for your help! Kaklen (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Nomination of St. Augustine's College (Malta) for deletion
edit
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Augustine's College (Malta) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article.
Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)