User talk:Matthewrobertolson

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

If you created 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 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 on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:BishopSlatteryCondemningHHSContraceptionMandate.png
Thanks for uploading File:BishopSlatteryCondemningHHSContraceptionMandate.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  00:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

March 2014
Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pope Pius IX without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Last Roman Emperor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of time (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) 09:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanks! :) matthewrobertolsonTalk 00:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Date format
I notice that some of your edits to articles on American politicians have included dates, and that you've used DMY format (e.g. "8 May 2014") instead of MDY ("May 8, 2014"). Per WP:STRONGNAT, we should be using the latter common American format for American subjects. Could I ask you to watch this in the future?

It's an easy error to make-- I've written several articles on Anthony Trollope novels, and in moments of incaution have slipped in dates in the American format. And, of course, no matter how many times I proofread, a "color" or a "favor" gets through. Ammodramus (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Path modification to fix broken links
Dear Matthew,

In the write protected article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope Can you please fix the existing broken links in the External links https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope#External_links

Broken links

Origins of Peter as Pope The Authority of the Pope: Part I The Authority of the Pope: Part II The correct links are listed below http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii End of correction

Please also review my article which includes solid references to scriptures and vast compelling references to the early church all before 400AD.

http://www.4unity.net/the-bishop-of-rome/

Please include this in the external links page.

Fyi, I am a practicing Catholic and believe that the Catholic Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Likewise I wasn't raised a Catholic, but instead at the age of 17 (21 years ago) I decided I wanted to be baptized and give my heart to God. I prayed and studied scripture and meet with different groups including the Jehovah Witnesses. I strongly felt God calling me to the ultimate altar call to receive him, body blood soul and divinity in the Eucharist, I studied for one full year under the parih priest Father Patrick Kennedy. I now go to both traditional Latin and English masses. I subject myself to the authority of the Church and i'm very proud to be a Catholic. It is my goal to create greater unity between Protestants and Catholics by clearing up the misunderstanding that the Protestants have regarding the Catholic teachings. My main focus is reaching cults who deny Jesus as their Lord and Savior. I aman expert in the doctrine of the Trinity and by the grace of God have been used to lead people from cults into the safe arms of our Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be to his Holy name now and forever.

Daniel Skilling www.4unity.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dskilli (talk • contribs) 12:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Vannozza dei Cattanei, Choice of Sources and NPOV
Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions to Vannozza dei Cattanei. When quoting sources, consider what sources they cite. Also consider whether they represent the current scholarly consensus, a substantial minority position, or something on the extreme fringe. To ensure a neutral point of view, articles must not give particular viewpoints undue weight. A viewpoint held by a tiny minority doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

The sentence "Pope Leo X in this way recognised Vannozza either as the widow of Alexander VI or as the mother of the Duchess of Ferrara." is controversial, published though it may have been, because it's the only explanation given in the article for the style of her funeral, but other explanations (such as the scale of her gifts to the Church) may be more widely accepted by scholars today. I've left the sentence alone because I don't have time right now to improve the section, but it does need improvement.

I've reverted the edit that added: Frederick Rolfe wrote: "Nothing is known against the character of Madonna Giovanna de' Catanei except that she was the mistress, first of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, second of Cardinal Rodrigo de Lancol y Borja."

because, although it has been claimed that she was the mistress of Cardinal Giuliano della Rovere, that is a view held by only a tiny minority of authors. Consider, in contrast, Gregorovius (1904), Burchard (1910 translation), Villari (1911), Sabatini (1912), Durant (1953), Erlanger (1978), Zapperi (1979), Johnson (1981), Cloulas (1993), Locklin (2000), New Catholic Encyclopedia: BORGIA (BORJA) (2003), Bradford (2004), Hibbert (2008), and Strathern (2009). Rolfe is notoriously outside the mainstream. Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2014 (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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

In some benign wp:CANVASSING
Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's ... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales.--Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 00:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 16:13, 25 November 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) 01:09, 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) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)