User talk:Mpolo

/archive 1 09:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

Mona Lisa by Duchamp
Hi, I have just noticed your edit You suggested that the original art work's copyright protection has expired. Is that the case? Are you talking about Da Vinci's work by any chance and not Duchamp's? Or are you indicating that Duchamp's modification of the Mona Lisa lacks minimum degree of creativity to warrant him any copyright? I just could not decide myself, but thought it would be good to get your attention. Tomos 12:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thank you for your answer at my talk page. I thought about it again. As I understand, the period of copyright protection in many jurisdictions (for example the members of the Berne Convention) is calculated as author's life + x years, x currently being 50 (minimum according to the Convention) or 70 years (becoming popular especially among European countries). When a work is created and published before 1923, it is in the public domain in the U.S., while protected in some other countries because Marcel Duchamp lived until 1968. So perhaps {PD-art-US} is the best tag for that image? Tomos 17:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ASCII
Your ASCII graphic contains the apostrophe character twice. The one that comes right before "a" should actually be a grave accent character. Is there any chance you could correct the image? - mjb 01:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further, it says that there are ninety five printable ASCII characters, but both SPACE and DEL are nonprinting, would this not reduce the total to ninety four? &mdash; Hobart 21:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spanish Translation of the Week
I would like to revive this project. I noticed that you've added yourself to the list of available Spanish-to-English translators. Are you interested in working on Spanish Translation of the Week? &mdash; J3ff 06:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alleged Biblical inconsistencies
An editor has |just added a comment to this page. It is in connection with the children of Adam and Eve. I wanted to edit it because although he is correct in what he says, I think it could be better worded. However, I don't really follow the argument. As the history shows you as being the one that wrote it, could you please clarify what the alleged inconsistency is (either as a reply here or in the article)? Philip J. Rayment 01:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the follow-up. However, what I was wanting as much as anything was for you to clarify the part that you originally wrote.  You wrote "Further problems sometimes cited in regard to the creation account because the text only indicates the existence of Adam, Eve, Cain, and Seth after the third chapter. Nonetheless, both Seth and Cain have children, ... Lilith is sometimes cited here as a solution ...".  But this doesn't really explain just what the problems are.  I assume that it is meant to indicate a problem as to how there can be children without mothers (allegedly) existing, but this is not clear.  Am I correct in that assumption?  Philip J. Rayment 13:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't that about incest?     11:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Republics
Need your help and/or advice. The British Wikipedian Republican Party sought fit to delete Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic from Wikipedia. There is a terrible brouhaha at Talk:Republic. They won't even allow an external link! SimonP really doesn't know what he is doing. They deleted the Classical definition of republic and created mixed government and politeia instead. The official title of mixed government is a Republic and the Romans translated "politiea" as Republic. And then to top it off the new article Classical republicanism doesn't refer to the Classical republics of Crete, Sparta, Solonic Athens, or Rome but to Machiavelli's ideology. How can that be when Venice in the 13th century instituted a mixed government and called herself a "Republic".

With Jwrosenwieg and Kim Bruning there was a tacit agreement a year ago to have republic be the modern meaning and a [Classical definition of republic] to describe the ancient republics of Hellas and Rome and their influence. To say the least the "Republic section" is all messed up. We need some clarification. I have new information but User:Snowspinner won't let me bring this back up for undelete. (I do grant that a little bit of the Classical definition is original but the rest is not.) I will not let Sparta be called anything but a republic! I will not let the British wikipedian modern republicans strip Sparta, (my heritage and roots) of her rightful name. She is a Classical republic and needs to be called such! At the least, where is the damage in having an external link?WHEELER 15:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject Bible
There has been recent discussion at this WikiProject. You are indicated as a member, and so may wish to join it. 11:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Who said that Irenaeus wrote/edited the Gospel of John?
I noticed this here. Although you may not have been the first person to insert the statement about "some" believing that Irenaeus wrote the Fourth Gospel, I noticed that you had either inserted it or reinserted it. I was wondering whether you could shed some light on where the claim comes from. If it can't be sourced, I would like to move for its deletion. I must sound like a blowhard know-it-all in this sentence, but I've got some two dozen various extensive commentary books on John and none of them make note of such a view. Of course, if it can be sourced, that would be great. If you didn't insert it, maybe you can tell me who did so I can inquire with him or her? --Peter Kirby 08:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sesame Street on FAC
Hi there, you supported Sesame Street becoming a featured article by in 2004, I was wondering if you'd mind looking again at the article, and possibly supporting the current campaign? Thanks for your time! -- user:zanimum

ASCII image
Hello. What font did you use in Image:Ascii full.png? —Slicing (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Pages up for deletion
There are two pages up for deletion Revolution within the form and Cretan/Spartan connection. Can I ask for a vote to Transwiki these. Thanks.WHEELER 23:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

St John Bosco
There has been some additions to the John Bosco page saying he was a closest homosexual or pederast. This is not NPOV. Do you agree?evrik 23:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Saint John Bosco

USerbox
Something new ...

Preventing an edit war on the saints
It was the established operation of the WikiProject Saints to have a section in the info box on a sample prayer. Some editors have been recently been attacking this in the individual articles.

It is my belief that prayers in a literary or historic context are NPOV. I can understand that some may consider the inclusion of a prayer to be hagiographic, but freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.

There is a 3RR about to happen on a number of these articles. I am trying to be philosophical about this, but don’t want to yield the point when what is happening goes against the consensus and borders on vandalism.

It is my understanding that if an editing disagreement occurs that the status quo, in this case leaving the prayers in place, holds until it is resolved. I encourage you to comment on this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints. I have posted my thoughts at the village pump.

--evrik 15:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible renaming of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints
It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Cristero War FAR
Cristero War has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Marskell 15:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:Miguel Pro.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Miguel Pro.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jubilee2000.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Jubilee2000.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

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) 04:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:JesusinShroud.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:JesusinShroud.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 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  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  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 63.249.90.91 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Lawrence-before-Valerianus.jpg
File:Lawrence-before-Valerianus.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lawrence-before-Valerianus.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Plutarco.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Plutarco.jpg. 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 , 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 .

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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Holy-Door-St-Paul.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Holy-Door-St-Paul.jpg. 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 , 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 .

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. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:39, 26 January 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

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. I am messaging you because you are a member of WikiProject_Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Day-of-forgiveness.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Day-of-forgiveness.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pope John Paul II in prison.jpg


The file File:Pope John Paul II in prison.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing 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 files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)