User talk:Marax

Welcome to the Wikipedia
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:


 * Tutorial
 * Help desk
 * Foundation issues
 * Policy Library

For more information click  here . You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~.



Sam Spade Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Spade & Archer! 06:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) - With regard to the reliability of the testimonies by apostates in general and in Opus Dei and its subpage please take into account on that this is an extremely sensitive issue. I had minor involvment in Opus Dei, but I am an apostate in the sociological meaning of the word ("critical former member") of another religious group. I consider the negative generalizations that Wilson makes about a very diverse "group" of people untrue, outdated (they may have had some truth during the time of the anti-cult scare of the 1970s and 1980s), insulting and his excessive scepticism that he prometes ridiculous. It is simply hate speech. Andries 10:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Marax for your sympathy. How would you feel when you went through a traumatic experience and were labelled unreliable, not just by a defender of the faith, but by an academic on the basis of sweeping generalizations? Here is my story if you are interested. Here is an article that voices some of the objections that I have against Wilson's generalizations.  Andries 10:40, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

(X-post from Talk:Opus_Dei). Not sure if you did this Marax, but the intro para seems to contain a contradiction. It indicates first that Opus Dei was "created by the Roman Catholic Church" and then that it was "founded" by St. Escriva. It seems to me that we ought to distinguish b/t something created institutionally by the Pope or the College of Cardinals, and something created by an individual who was just a priest at the time. To that end, I think it's misleading to say that Opus Dei was "created" by the church. --Kchase02 07:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations
Hi! The page Opus Dei: Responses to Cult Accusations appears to be orphaned. It is not referred to and is untouched. Would you object to its deletion? --William Pietri 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of it! -- William Pietri 15:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see. I understand that the article at least partially deals with the accusations, but perhaps I need clarification on Wikipedia policy regarding uncited statements. Since the sentence I mentioned is both contentious and uncited/unsourced, is this still ligit? Thanks, and I don't mean to press the issue, just wanted to clarify this for my own understanding.

Another interesting issue to discuss is the characterization of Catholic Church affiliates of being liberal/progressive or conservative/orthodox. The fairness of the labels differs from religion to religion, but it seems that with Catholicism, since it's precepts are clearly laid out in writing, and many are declared unchangeable--as with the mission of the Church--I think that the orthodox/heterodox labels are more egalitarian. In a sense, there is no such thing as a "conservative" or "liberal" Catholic, only orthodox and less orthodox ones; that is, those who choose to embrace all the Church's teachings and those who choose only embrace some. So since the definition and limits of orthodoxy are so clearly laid out for Catholics, it would seem that the orthodox/unorthodox labels are preferable.

Pianoman123 14:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Flannery O'Connor picture
As much as I prefer your picture, I don't think it can be used in the Roman Catholic Church article. As a copyrighted picture, it can only be "fair use" in an article which deals with her. The Monica picture is public domain due to age, and doesn't have this limitation. Is the O'Connor picture is public domain? (You can respond here.) Gimmetrow 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Gimmetrow. Thank you for this background information on the O'Connor picture. My profound apologies for missing this point. You are correct. :-) it is better to bring back the image of St. Monica. Marax 01:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Flannery O'Connor
Hey. I didn't upload the Flannery O'Connor picture; that honor goes to RudyLucius. I do agree with you about puting it in the Catholic Church article; she does represent Catholic laity quite well. Good luck finding permission! Caesar 19:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment to User:Heavyrock
Hello, I was in the process of moving the comment you left on Heavyrock's user page, but I noticed that you repeated the comment on their Talk page. I still removed your comment from their user page. -- Gogo Dodo 08:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Re your message: Not a problem. It happens from time to time.  No worries. =)  If Heavyrock gets back to you, you might consider telling them that they can probably find an admin to delete the blank user page that was the result of my removal.  That is if they prefer a non-existant user page over a blank user page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you help?
There's a Request for Comment at Talk:Opus Dei.

After going through the process which led up to mediation (here), a mediation that resolved that the majority POV is the view of experts such as John Allen, Jr. and Benedict XVI, the main opponent of the article replaced the old article with his own personal version, and then asked for an Request for Comment.

Kindly give your comment. Please. :) Thanks and God bless. Arturo Cruz 15:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Edward Grant
Hi, Marax. Yesterday I transformed a previous redirect to Ted Grant in an article about the historian Edward Grant. However, today I noticed that around two weeks ago you created Edward Grant (Historian and philosopher). Now we (or somebody else) need to merge both articles. I think Grant is notable enough for the article to be named simply as "Edward Grant" (he is the first subject that appears when someone google for his name). I suggest that we merge the content from the version you started earlier into the one I started yesterday, and then make "Edward Grant (Historian and philosopher)" a redirect page. What do you think? (I would happily do the merge all by myself, but notice that if I am the one merging your text into the new article it will appear as if I was the author). --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 13:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei GAR
I actually quite like the Opus Dei article, and if the material in the Replies to criticism section was distributed in the rest of the article it would probably have my support in its GAR. I completely agree with you that the research findings of Allen, Introvigne, Messori, Plunkett, et al are worthy of a serious encyclopedia, it's just that their presentation as an apparent refutation of the previously stated criticism that I think tips the POV-meter slightly into the red zone. With a little bit of reorganisation I think it would be a fine article, well up to GA. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Opus Dei GAR
Dear Alec, Thank you for your work at Opus Dei. You might be interested to know that its GA status is under review and the major question raised is the present structure which you ably proposed and implemented: a separate controversy section containing both criticism and response. I tried my best to defend it but I believe you will be able to defend it better than I do. :) Marax (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me to this-- I'm sorry that my words actually probably do more to have it de-listed than kept, but, ya know-- I have to offer my honest opinion, even though the article really is partially "my baby" and even though I worked really hard on it, I don't, objectively, think it's a good article.


 * something you might consider doing, if this does get delisted, is to make a private fork like I did, write up what your "dream Opus Dei" article would look like, and then submit it to the GAR/FAC people, and see what they think of it.


 * As I've said elsewhere-- the controversy and rebuttal to controversy isn't good, but it's not horrible, and I think reintegrating them, the page will get swept towards horrible rather than good.  But honestly, you might consider writing up an article that's "Opus Dei" by Marax.  If you can get the Featured Article people to agree that your private version is FA quality, it'll have my support also :)   --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting suggestion, and might be worth doing whether the article gets delisted or not. It may be easier to defend the "dream Opus Dei" article from instability than defend attempts to edit the existing content towards NPOV. Geometry guy 18:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV
The article is fundamentally changed, and very much for the better. Very well done, Marax. It is better structured, better balanced and generally better written. The NPOV is no longer necessary. Thanks for your hard work on it. --Jaimehy (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on GA Promotion of Opus Dei
Hi Marax,

I reviewed the GAN of Opus Dei and found it to be an overall excellent article. Thanks for all of the hard work you put into it, congratulations, and good luck in your future edits.

Here is something for you; please pass it on to any deserving editors that you know of or worked with on this project.

Best regards,

Malachirality (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Malachirality. :) I would have wanted to thank you in your talk page, but since you requested that conversations are held in one place, I am thanking you here. It was very kind of you to review the article and give it much praise. I will indeed pass on the badge, or whatever it is called, to many other deserving editors who worked on this. Thanks again! Marax (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A belated thanks too for your hard work. The box is deserved. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!


Hello,, 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! Beware  ofdog  17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ratzinger
Are you preparing a reply to my comments against including Ratzinger in the Truth article?


 * Thanks for your comments, Jim Wae. :) I've just posted a reply at the talk page.

Are we going to see Ratzinger's opinions appear on every page he has ever said a word about?


 * According to his own thinking, the most important question is on truth: it is, for him, the key to the whole problem of modernity. So I have been trying to help Wikipedia readers get to know the main points of this notable contemporary thinker on a contemporary issues which he believes to be very important, and where he has written notable contributions.

His remarks about Agnosticism are in no way original - essentially the same thing appears in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 that you linked to. --JimWae (talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 does not discuss terrorism and ecological disasters. Also it lacks a discussion of the relation between truth and tolerance, an important contemporary issue.Marax (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for the confusion. I have corrected my misstatement and did my best to convey how wiki policy applies to these additions on the talk page. BTW I'm not a "wiki lawyer" as I'm just trying to make some sense of whats appropriate for the article. Modocc (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious scholars
Thank you very very much Marax. I am very happy to read your contribution in Agnosticism. Very well done. Ratzinger is a spokesman for all religious people in India and other parts of the world. Thank you. Pradeshkava (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxed

 * Hi. I've gone ahead and rescued what I could of your contributions, as I indicated I would at my talk page. I've stored text by you that did not build off of existing but constituted new copyrightable material at User:Marax/sandbox. You are free to modify this material and incorporate it in the article as seems appropriate. I've clustered the material by contribution groups, and some of the later contrib groups supersede the earlier material. I had to start from the beginning in order to determine what represented wholly new content by you. Some of the finer details that were added to existing text have been lost, I'm afraid, and again I apologize for the delay, but I hope that this will prove useful to you. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Licensing change
Hi. :) I'm very sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the article Teodoro Kalaw has had to be deleted for copyright reasons. Wikipedia's licensing provisions changed this past summer, as a result of which we are no longer allowed to accept material that is solely licensed under GFDL, such as Wikipilipinas. It's kind of crazy, I know, but so its mandated by the Wikimedia:Terms of Use. If you've imported other material from Wikipilipinas, please tag it for appropriate handling or let me know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

August 2011
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Luther Bible. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Serviam
Hi, where did you get the material for Serviam? A Gbooks search shows nothing real except a self published book, probably lifted from Wikipedia. I am not sure if this material is correct. Please clarify on the talk page there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up.

Some appear in the references, but here are some more:

http://www.stveronica.net/uploads/documents/general/082811final.pdf?PHPSESSID=1d286ddf3c03651f43cd9e0914699f1f

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/articles/fishingformen.htm

http://www.beginningcatholic.com/daily-catholic-prayer.html

http://ursulineneworleans.org/alumnae/spotlights/

http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/ccollins/new-journey/chap-7newjourney.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases_%28full%29

http://blog.adw.org/2010/02/the-means-are-not-the-end/

I am open to be proven wrong on some points but as far as I know this is Catholic doctrine. I will do more research myself.

Thanks again for bringing this up.

Marax (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I also asked an expert on the topic and he seems to think it is not baseless. But I think the artice needs more solid WP:RS references for I found it "hard to believe" when I read it. And as I said on the talk page there, seems obscure. It is best you add references since you started the page, but please add WP:RS sources because secondexodus, beginningcatholic, christendom-awake, etc. are all unacceptable as Wikipedia references. And of course blogs are an absolute no-no. The term may be barely notable, but as I said on the talk page for the article, it does not appear in any of the well known books on Catholic teachings, so more references to clarify where "the text came from" are needed. I am not at all sure if the text can be supported by WP:RS sources. So please do fix that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Love, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Good (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) 13:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Some simple help maybe needed - 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) 09:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

Speedy deletion nomination of Thomas Goldstein (historian of science)


A tag has been placed on Thomas Goldstein (historian of science) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Laun chba  ller  17:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Spiritual direction for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spiritual direction 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/Spiritual direction 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 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. kashmiri TALK  13:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Supernumerary for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Supernumerary 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/Supernumerary 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 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. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mariano Fazio
Hi, I'm TonyBallioni. Marax, thanks for creating Mariano Fazio!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. If you could add more independent reliable sources to the article it would be helpful. As a living person who is a member of a controversial organization, having reliable sources is very important.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

TonyBallioni (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Thanks and need for sources
Hello User:Marax and thank you for your message on my talk page. This is a self-published and non-academic source that does not meet WP:RS. In addition, it is inaccurate with respect to the belief of the Reformed/Presbyterian Churches, which do indeed teach a pneumatic presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I have supplanted it with a scholarly source, although I appreciate that you have changed "the majority" to "a number". In addition, I also made some corrections with respect to your edits concerning apostolic succession. Historic Protestant Churches do not contest the validity of the orders of Roman Catholic clergy. However, the converse is true--the Catholic Church does not recognize the holy orders and apostolic succession that many Protestant Churches teach they possess. I added reliable sources to buttress these statements. I should note that much of the information that you have added to the article seems to be a criticism of fundamentalist Christianity, rather than historic Protestantism. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 21:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * An article from the National Catholic Register provides some clarity with respect to the claim of 33,000 Protestant denominations. I was thinking of revising the article in light of its findings although I thought it might be better to let you do so. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Eucharist ordering
I appreciate your message on my talk page. I have reversed the order of the paragraphs per your request though I have retained the original wording of both of them to comply with WP:NPOV. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Methodist faith and works
Dear User:Marax, Methodist usage of "justification by faith" does not mean the same thing as it does in a Lutheran & Reformed context. We must look at secondary sources that delineate John Wesley's writings. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, published by Baker Academic, explains this difference:

It is for this reason that Bishop Scott J. Jones in United Methodist Doctrine writes that "for the vast majority of human beings good works are necessary for continuance in faith because those persons have both the time and opportunity for them." In comparing the Reformed tradition to the Methodist faith, the theologian Jeff Robinson writes: "Reformed Arminianism’s understanding of apostasy veers from the Wesleyan notion that individuals may repeatedly fall from grace by committing individual sins and may be repeatedly restored to a state of grace through penitence." I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message User:Marax. Feel free to summarize the quote according to the revision you suggested on my talk page. I hope this helps. Pax Christi, AnupamTalk 15:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Criticism of Protestantism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karl Adam ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Criticism_of_Protestantism check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Criticism_of_Protestantism?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 09:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:POV check
Dear User:Marax, I hope you are doing well and had a nice Easter celebration. As requested, I added a comment on the talk page of the article. I hope this helps and hope that you had a wonderful Easter celebration. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Undeclared COI around Opus Dei
Hello, Marax. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Opus Dei, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. See. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Requesting inputs
Greetings,

Seeking your valuable inputs @ Talk:Cognitive relativism since previously you seem to have edited the article Relativism

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 05:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

GAR Opus Dei
Opus Dei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. A. C. Santacruz &#8258;  Talk  16:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Capello romano.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Capello romano.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Continued COI editing, please refrain from editing anything OD related
Hello, Marax. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Priestly Society of the Holy Cross, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2022 (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) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sole Satisfier


The article Sole Satisfier has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "WP:NPOV, WP:GNG (see further concerns in talk page)"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Sole Satisfier for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sole Satisfier 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/Sole Satisfier 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 until the discussion has finished. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)