User talk:MPSchneiderLC

Welcome...

Hello, MPSchneiderLC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: $$ Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. If you are interested in conservatism, you may want to check out the Conservatism Portal. ''Please accept this invitation to join the Conservatism WikiProject, a friendly group of editors dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism. Simply click here to accept!'' Again, welcome! – Lionel (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Thanks. I like your idea about joining a project but I don't have much time and would join WikiProject Catholicism first as that is my real love. Whatever I edit elsewhere comes from this. Yours in Christ, Br Matthew, LC 17:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * WPCatholicism is a great project! I should know, I'm a member there too! Take care, – Lionel (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Btw noticed your editing on Crisis Preg. Until you "get the hang of things" be careful at CPC as it's under 1RR. If you have any questions feel free to post at the article talk page, my talk page or even WT:RIGHT.

Userboxes
You can tell more about a man from what he rejects than from what he accepts. I suppose you're one of those who believe that our Lord did not read from the KJV? You must be one of them that believe that it wasn't completed until he ascended and was seated at the Right Hand of the Father, and, in simultaneity with the Holy Ghost and tongues of fire, sent down twelve thumb-indexed bonded-leather copies (excluding the Apocrypha, of course) of the KJV, each containing three ribbons (and Scofield's annotations), to the Apostles so they could preach the true and uncorrupted Word of God and his advanced revelation in English to the philistine masses. And a Darwinist too... St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 17:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just couldn't figure out which template was for a few like the Trinitarian one, or the one about wanting to know more about this world. And I am kind of agnostic regarding the creation evolution debate except we obviously can't begin with the "fluxuation of nothing" (Hawking) or any other form of atheistic evolution. I would tend to some kind of ID or progressive creation vision but I skipped out of biology too early wanted to begcome an engineer. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC 18:17, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If there are any userboxes you want, feel free to ask, and I can tell you which ones are which, or code a custom userbox of any sort (I'm lazy with mine, they all have the same picture and background color) for any belief that you desire. I should make a sub-page of my userspace with userboxes on it, as some other userbox-programmers have. (Incidentally, I also received little formal education in biology, but studied it on my own a bit, and understand a good deal of chemistry; originally I studied [organic] chemistry, and then [electrical, i.e. electronic, ICs, not power distribution] engineering, before settling on philosophy and theology.) Edit: I hope you got at least a chuckle (or is that Jack Chick-le?) out of the KJV, as every educated man knows the true Bible is the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, annotated by Haydock. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 13:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Har har, we are even more similar that I thought. I began in computer engeineering. I debated between phil/theo or computers just before college but I realized a four year computer degree could support a wife and kids better than 6 years of the other option. Now I'm a year from being a preist. I actually made my own userbox for being a Legionary. I just copied and pasted one that looked similar and played with the parameters. I think it looks right. I still can't get them to line up; on this screen, they appear with spaces in the middle. Anyways, tonight I am on reception so I will probably be making some of the pages on Template:Regnum Christi. I have wrote this template (again by finding a similar template, copy, paste, and edit) and a few of the pages on it. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * They will never line up unless you space them by hand with a bunch of nobreak spaces (very inelegant) or use boxes to contain the userboxes, which run like this in wikisyntax:  . I believe this can be rejiggered to have multiple columns (it defaults to one column per box), and I'm pretty sure there's another way to do it in native HTML, not using wikisyntax, but I'm damned if I know it (I never could do HTML or XML or CSS or any of that web crap at all). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks better. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 08:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Category:Anahuac Univeristies
Category:Anahuac Univeristies, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine. My typo. I am not too active on Wikipedia so I don't know every nook and crany. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for consensus for editing Template:Catholicism
You are invited to join the discussion at Template_talk:Catholicism to edit the list of Doctors of the Church to add John of Avila and Hildegard of Bingen and do this by embedding Template:Churchdoctor. --Jayarathina (talk) 12:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Institute for the Psychological Sciences
Sorry about my hasty edits! I re-added most of your content to the Institute for the Psychological Sciences article sans the Vision part. Maybe you could readd it without the advertisement-like tone? Otherwise, excellent editing! Sсοττ 5834 talk 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of the Opus Dei infobox
Hello. I see you added the Opus Dei infobox to a number of articles for people who are merely in the category Opus Dei members. I really don't think that's appropriate - it might make sense for priests and the like who are primarily associated with Opus Dei, but for people for whom their membership is just a footnote, and are known for other reasons, such as politicians? Such a loose standard would imply that there should be 20 infoboxes for every activity they participated in. Which is the same as 0 infoboxes, because with so many the truly relevant ones would get lost in the bloat. Anyway, I plan on removing it from some of those articles, and figured I'd explain my reasoning. SnowFire (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You are probably right. Could you help me fix it up? I admit I copied and pasted it to people in the category without reading their page extesively. >> Jesus Loves You! M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 19:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
hi, do you think you can perhaps help us reach a consensus at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pope_Benedict_XVI ? I know it's a complicated subject, but any help you can give us would be great! Aunva6 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI
Hi! I'm not sure if I can answer your question, because the discussions regarding that article are a complete mess. My main concern at the moment is to keep the article on topic and neutral, and to prevent it from being used as a coatrack on which to hang one-sided criticism. As far as I can tell, there is no reliable evidence that the attempts to have Pope Benedict prosecuted had any bearing on his decision to resign, so I see that as completely out of scope. On the other hand, we already mention his decision to remain in the Vatican, so there is a case to be made as to why we should cover the reasons behind that decision. That said, I'd rather leave conjecture out of the article completely, and I think there is a concern about relying on "unnamed people from the Vatican" as the source for a claim that strong, especially given that I've yet to see any solid arguments that he was open to criminal prosecution in the first place. I'm going to raise the Reuters source on WP:RSN to see if other editors there feel that the reliance on unnamed sources is ok. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In regard to the immunity issue, I think bringing in more eyes certainly won't hurt. We've got two issues - RSN will help determine if an anonymous source is reliable enough, and if it is, we then have the question of relevance and due weight.
 * My major concern is that there is a push, largely by Tdadamemd, to use synthesis to lead the reader towards the idea that Benedict resigned due to reasons other than health. I'm concerned that the wish to present a particular point of view has led to what appears to be some dishonest presentations of sources, and this is always a serious problem when it occurs. At any rate, I guess we'll see how the article develops, and I hope to see it remain focused on the topic. - Bilby (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain
With this message I'm asking you to please refrain from adding Jesus loves you to your signature. Wikipedia may (or has) become the repository of all knowledge, including on theological topics, but its editors should remain neutral at all times. Please do not use Wikipedia as a vehicle for promoting your point of view. Respectfully,   Lova Falk     talk   08:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

PS. Just informing you that there is a discussion about this here: Help_desk. Respectfully,  Lova Falk     talk   12:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Some simple help maybe needed in the new papabili list
If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC))


 * I am busy this week and the whole thing is a little convoluted because it all depeneds on what weight you give to each news source. I would favor limiting it to cardinals who are on 3 lists of well-known media or some such thing to make it only 5 or 10. For instance, I am pretty sure Amato will not be elected (despite writing a great Christology book we used as our textbook), he's a real outside change but everyone is talking Turkson, Scola and Oullet so they should show up more clearly. This is beyond my time this week, and it will be too late after that. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 18:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment
Hey MPSchneiderLC; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pope
Excuse me. It was a equivocation.--EeuHP (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Congregational initials
Hey, Bro. When you get a chance, I'd appreciate your input on an editing matter which has arisen here. The original Manual of Style for this site treated postnominal initials as honorifics, equivalent to OBE and KSG. I was adding the initials of individual's order/congregation/institute highlighted as part of their name. My rationale was, and is, that they are in fact part of our names, just as Sr. and Jr. would be. A small number of editors disputed that on various grounds which had a curious temper to my ear, and without any discussion (that I could see) changed the MOS from dealing with them as honorifics to covering simply all postnominals. Since you use your own institute's initials, I am curious as to what your take on this debate might be. A happy Eastertide to you. Daniel the Monk (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is this discussion? I guessed it would be in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies but it isn't. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a bit dated now, so it was archived. Here's the link I've brought up the issue with confreres, but since they don't understand the ways of Wiki (as few of us truly do), I mostly got a lot of crossed eyes. I'd appreciate your take. Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I'll leave it since it is already archived. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't include "Fr," "Bishop," or "Card" as part of one's bold name (often not even putting these before the name but having them later in the opening sentence). As an exception "Pope" is included not only in bold on the first line but in the title of the page. I think they would be just as key. I agree with you but I see that you have a really uphill fight. I don't see it as so key that the religious name is in bold; I would fight much more vigorously if the argument was over having it at all. If this discussion comes up again, I would defend that it is part of the name. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 09:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Happy Easter! Thanks for looking at the matter. My thought is currently running along the lines of looking for consensus to re-instate the MOS where it previously spoke of postnominal initials as "honorifics", which was the crux of the argument for me, until one individual (so far as I could see) changed it, and to distinguish our initials from that. Would that be something you would support? Daniel the Monk (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You need to change the discussion from "honorifics" to align it more with a maiden name vs. married name if you want to have this changed. Being a religious is not a profession (i.e. honorifics) but a vocation (akin to marriage). If being a religious is aligned with a job, it should be treated like any other and have the honorifics after and not bold. p.s. it isn't always followed: Sylvester Heereman, for example. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell mugshot
User "MPSchneiderLC" posted on Gregg DesElm's (user:Deselms) "Talk" page:
 * In the File:Kermit_Gosnell_mug.jpg discussion you state: "all local mugshots are also in the public domain." I hope we can get a picture of Gosnell for his page but Wikipedia needs proof of this (link to law X or similar) to rule in your favor. If not, once he is found guilty, mugshots can be used as non-public domain images since there is no way to take a picture of him anymore (similar to how Wikipedia has corporate logos on their respective pages). >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Gregg DesElms's response
I have just entirely resolved the matter. Please see my "[t]he matter is now settled" posting in. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding back
It may be good if you could somehow find out some documentation for universal policy on Wikipedia. Basically so all mugshots are considered public domain. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was thinking that, too. If I can find the time, I will. Sadly, simply navigating this behemoth of an officious place, and figuring out where to even begin such a process, can be daunting, and can take more time than finally getting done whatever is the actual desired deed! I'll see what I can do (and when I can do it). [grin] 'Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Just FYI: See, now, my "UPDATE:" posting in the Gosnell mugshot discussion thread; as well as my "NOTE: (18 April 2013)" immediately beneath the PUF notice on the mugshot's actual web page here. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul Dumol
Hi there! It's understandable that someone would remove it. The only source I have is Wikipedia's own list of members of Opus Dei. Dr. Dumol's entry on that list, however, is sourced. --Pare Mo (talk) 06:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the largest Protestant churches in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Episcopalian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released
Hey MPSchneiderLC; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Christologists
Hello, Brother MP. I recently created a category to cover these theologians. A proposal was immediately made to delete it, which was seconded, due to its supposed irrelevance. Would you be willing to add a voice in support of keeping the category? Daniel the Monk (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As a subcategory of theologians, I'd have to see your rationale. All Christian theologians generally do Christology. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
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) 12:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However I was too late as I'm on a long term WIkibreak due to increased ministerial responsibilities. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by
Thanks for stopping by my talk page. I am indeed Catholic - "fellow traveller" has an unfortunate connotation, however (someone along just for the ride who does not share the values or principles of the others and is looking for an opportunity to deflect the others from their destination). Say rather that we are journeying together.

Please be assured that I hold the Legionaries and the members of its affiliates in my prayers during this special time, imploring the Holy Spirit to lead all those participating in the General Chapter on the path of purification and renewal. God bless. (I have copied this from my own talk page) Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Turning to wiki-matters, (a) I have dropped a note at User talk:Hugetim pressing on him the error of an edit he made as long ago as 24 December which has resulted in the Legion of Christ article announcing that the institute is of pontifical rite, and (b) having read the comment in Beal/Corriden/Green under Code of Canon Law, Bk II, Title V, chap.IV, I entirely concur in your remarks about the Regnum Christi movement which, as you properly advised me, remains a lay association even if diocesan clergy are members. Ridiculus mus (talk) 12:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks if you go back in the edits I may have also made the rite-right error. I just double-checked as I have usually heard this or read it in a foreign tongue. Agreed, "fellow traveller" may not be the best term, I think through page edits but on usertalk space I just let my fingers flow. Send me a message here if you need help with any points, current duties prevent me from going to "watchlist" or doing other edits regularly. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 20:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Template: Opus Dei
Hi, I added a pic to the template, hope you like it. I noticed that another user, User talk:U UNAV has removed all of the links to articles that do not paint Opus Dei in the greatest of lights. I have reverted the changes. But, I have just noticed that the changes were 6 months ago. Did you want the changes still in place? I can always undo what I've just done. Pjposullivan (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great the logo of Opus Dei is appropriate and those links are relevant. I've been busy in real life and haven't kept up on my watchlist. I only caught this as Wikipedia warned me when I was coming to look at an article. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 02:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 6 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Dwayne Johnson page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=636918986 your edit] caused an unsupported parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F636918986%7CDwayne Johnson%5D%5D Ask for help])

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dogmatic sarcophagus.JPG


A tag has been placed on File:Dogmatic sarcophagus.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know why I was notified but it seems like the image has metadata which is what F2 seeks to remedy. There is also no Speedy Deletion info on the page. I presume this speedy deletion was canceled. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 17:09, 11 October 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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Catholic-Hierarchy.org
Hello. I noticed that you have edited a number of articles on Catholicism. A discussion is taking place as to whether the website Catholic-Hierarchy.org is a reliable source that can be utilized on Wikipedia or whether all references and information derived from it should be deleted. This topic is currently being discussed at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. As the website's removal as a reference will affect several thousand Wikipedia articles, I believe that the broadest range of opinions should be obtained before action is taken. Please contribute if interested.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Examining it. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 14:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

New newsletter for Notifications
Hello

You are subscribing to the Notifications newsletter on English Wikipedia.

That newsletter is now replaced by the monthly and multilingual Collaboration team newsletter, which will include information and updates concerning Notifications but also concerning Flow and Edit Review Improvements.

Please subscribe!

All the best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Catholic laity
Template:Catholic laity has been nominated for merging with Template:Associations of the Christian faithful. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Father!


CalderRC has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Hyphens
Please be aware of Wikipedia's Manual of Style for hyphens, which says "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb (a newly available home, a wholly owned subsidiary) ...". In particular, in the article Knights of Columbus. Happy editing! Chris the speller  yack  03:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

March 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. ''Facebook? IMDB?'' Drmies (talk) 02:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * The article was deleted a while back as lacking third party and notability. I was trying to point to quickly show notability. I would consider one of the two major candidates for presence sharing your media appearance on Facebook notable. I'm no longer a regular editor as I'm busy with other things but took this on as a one-off. Unfortunately, looking for info on her just on Google, her own website & podcasts take up the whole first page.>> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 03:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Meg Meeker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Meg Meeker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meg Meeker 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 Articles for deletion/Meg Meeker 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. Drmies (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Regnum Christi Sheild.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Regnum Christi Sheild.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I need ot do anything, but it looks like it was replaced by File:Regnum_Christi_logo.png on the relevant pages. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 23:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"Rich young man" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rich_young_man&redirect=no Rich young man] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. BD2412 T 13:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Comment made. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 21:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)