User talk:Pseudo-Richard/Talk Page Archive 2001-4

Nomination of List of landmark court decisions in the United States for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of landmark court decisions in the United States 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/List of landmark court decisions in the United States 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 template from the top of the article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thanx! --!!!!

User:Esoglou
Hello Pseudo-Richard. If you want Esoglou's restriction to be lifted, why not propose that on WP:AN? I have no objection to him being freed from his restriction so long as User:LoveMonkey is not active. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I did make the proposal at AN/I and subsequently withdrew it due to objections from Taiwan boi. As it turns out, LoveMonkey has returned and there is an active conflict at East-West Schism so my proposal is inappropriate at this time. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

... everything has a season
Now it is also time to wish you well Richard. I think you read the rest already. So let me say that ever since the days of the RC page and the waves that lead to the departure of Xandar, I grew to have respect for you and your calm approach. And I was impressed that pages like Catholic Church and women that you started quickly grew to be articles of substance. So I would like to wish you well and hope that you will be happy here or elsewhere.

If you like to watch a few RC pages that I will no longer watch that actively, please let me know and your help will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I will miss you, History2007. I have valued your input because it tended to be more carefully considered rather than just blowing hot air.  Even before your semi-retirement, I already felt that we heard too little from you and too much from some other editors.  If you wish to recommend some RC pages for me to watch, I will add them to my watchlist.  I make no guarantees that I will watch them closely as I have over 2000 pages on my watchlist and I tend to be involved in less than 10 pages at any given time.  I should probably prune my watchlist but every attempt to do so seems to be like fighting weeds in the yard. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well 2,000 is a really large set. Interestingly, some of the peripheral pages hardly get affected now, and have reached stability. I hardly see any changes to any of the 50 or so pages on the miracles and parables of Jesus. And the pages on the main events of the life of Jesus are pretty stable. Surprisingly, what was amazingly, and I mean amazingly contentious was the page Josephus on Jesus (and the related Tacitus on Christ) and two editors were indef-blocked and banned etc. Yet, I eventually managed to also clean up Historicity of Jesus (which builds on those) on my way out. I was amazed how incorrect they used to be.


 * My advice would be that whenever one of the very peripheral 2,000 pages shows up, just un-watch it. That way you will not have to trim your watchlist and it just gets trimmed little by little.


 * Anyway, I am not going away immediately, but will in the end - can not be doing this for another 5 years.... I will leave you a list of the key pages (e.g. Virgin Mary, Eucharistic adoration, etc.). Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, my prediction is that things will change. After 4 million articles, the times of excitement have passed and most of the work is clean up. The editor profile will change on Wikipedia, and there is even talk of doing a travel website. On that front Google bought Frommers today and will be doing content. I think it may be only a question of time before they do a more comprehensive google-siphon and eventually Googlepedia, with the best content from Wikipedia and elsewhere. In my view, it is just a question of time. But only time will tell.... History2007 (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Credo Reference account is approved
Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
 * If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
 * Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
 * Show off your Credo access by placing on your userpage
 * If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
 * To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
 * If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
 * HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
 * Show off your HighBeam access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Your Credo account access has been sent to your email!
All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
 * If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Talk:East-West Schism
Perhaps it is best to let the discussion on that page play out and not intervene, at least not at an early stage.

However, it would be good if you would attend to my request on Talk:Filioque - if, of course, you agree with it. Esoglou (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Free accounts
In due time, I would be interested in hearing of your experience with the three accounts that you are subscribed to for a year. Which do you find the best? In view of the picture that had been painted of me, I thought there was no point in applying, until I saw that not even half of the 1000 offers for one of them were being taken up. In practice, it is not as helpful as I hoped. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And so, the shoe is on the other foot, I need to ask you why you feel these resources have not been as helpful as you hoped. I signed up for the resources but I have not actually started my subscriptions because I have not had the time to even think about using them.  Today is probably the busiest day I've had on Wikipedia in a couple of months. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have access only to one. If I am looking for a particular source, I very rarely find it on the service.  For instance, the full text of a book of which the Google Books preview does not include the part I need, or a book of which Google Books only gives snippets.  Google Books gives more abundant information in response to a search.  You have to sift through the abundant information to get what you need, but you are helped by the key phrases displayed.  Searches on the service to which I have access have generally not been so helpful.  However, at times the service is useful.  But not enough, I think at present, for me to buy a subscription to it when the year is up.  Esoglou (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited East–West Schism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anicetus (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) 11:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Primacy of the Bishop of Rome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Anicetus


 * Quartodecimanism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Anicetus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators&oldid=526254016#Restoration_of_the_tools_.28proposal.29 recent change] to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114
In terms of getting it done, I'm trying to at least clean up the list so it's easier to see what articles still need to be worked on. That part is nearly done, and from there I can work on actually closing some of them out. It's one of the oldest five CCIs remaining so I'll spend what time I can there. Wizardman 02:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Tidying up
After my last message, I have eventually manged to tidy things up. I know this has sounded like the "next good by forever concert" that many people sell tickets for, but in all cases, there is a last good by forever concert. After Christmas I will really be slowing down. Anyway, in the last message we discussed a few pages that you could help watch after my fade out. So given that you are younger, smarter and more dedicated, I will provide the list. And yes, you are younger: I remember the days Jerry used to date Ronstadt and even had something to say...

So anyway, there are three classes of pages: Jesus' historicity, the gospels and Catholic Mariology.


 * After all the discussions at the Jesus talk page, I think this will most likely be my last edit of substance in Wikipedia. It took a while, but I think I have now added sources for almost all issues I can think of, or find. The 1 Thessalonians 2:14 item was the last missing piece I think to show that Jesus and Paul lived in the same time frame. The articles there that took a lot of work to get right are: Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus and are pretty complete now, and stable. Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ and Mara Bar-Serapion on Jesus are also in good shape, and fully sourced. They are essential elements in establishing historicity. It is amazing how much junk used to float about that. I think one of the most fun items was explaining that a person born in 1380 could not have manufactured a document that was used in 1374. That was fun. Christ myth theory has been mostly cleaned up now, just needs watching. So, anyway, I think this will hopefully be the last page I have to build - but it was necessary for this, a page that may also need long term attention. But now, it is done.


 * There are some pages that most people are unclear about and needed clarification: Chronology of Jesus, Ministry of Jesus and Life of Jesus in the New Testament. They are stable and fully sourced now.


 * Regarding the Marian pages, they are: Roman Catholic Mariology, Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Mariology of the saints, Mariology of the saints, Mariology of the popes and Marian art in the Catholic Church, Almost all of these pages were Afd-ed together 2 years ago and survived intact, and are stable now.

Your help in watching over these will be appreciated. Let me thank you in advance and also wish you Merry Christmas in advance. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have done more than yeoman's work on these many articles. I will miss you.  Don't go too far away. Merry Christmas to you as well. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

...
Merry Christmas! History2007 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism -- PBS (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Antisemitism in early Christianity


The article Antisemitism in early Christianity has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Initially a WP:CFORK from Christianity and antisemitism and has been tagged since its very first edit (?) as WP:OR. After removing all un-sourced content, it fails to prove its thesis in any way, and its content is already covered by the original article as well as the article on Anti-Judaism.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. -- Kendrick7talk 03:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Catholic Church and capital punishment
Before I take a whack at inserting materials into this article, I thought I would contact you as the originator of the entry.

The article seems to move back and forth as to what the Catholic Church position is on capital punishment. Early on it refers to authorities "invoked by the Catholic Church to oppose the death penalty" and then later on states that "It is still allowed for extreme cases."

It seems to conclude that capital punishment is allowed when "the death penalty is the only way to defend others against the guilty party". This is really not a fair summary of Catholic teaching. The late Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote an article for the April 2001 issue of First Things which summarizes both the current and traditional Catholic position:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/captpunish.htm

To summarize the Church's teaching, there are four reasons why any punishment may be inflicted upon a criminal: Rehabilitation, Defense against the criminal, Deterrence, and Retributive justice.

John Paul II dealt with one, and only one, of these reasons - defense against the criminal.

There remains the other three of which retributive justice is probably most relevant. For an example consider the case of Timothy McVeigh. He freely admitted the crime, the crime was of exceptional viciousness and heinousness, and he indicated he would do it again if he had to do it over.

Clearly we could consider defense against the criminal met if we incarcerated Timothy McVeigh for life. However, the other three reasons for capital punishment were relevant. Prominent in these is retributive justice. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

The phrase "proportionate to the gravity of the offense" translates into the common phrase "punishment fits the crime".

Most people's sense of justice would consider capital punishment as "proportionate to the gravity of the offense" for an unrepentant man who killed 168 innocent human beings - nineteen of whom were children as young as 3 months and three were pregnant women, injured more than 680 people, destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a 16-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and caused an estimated $652 million worth of damage.

As the Catechism states retributive justice is the *primary* reason for exacting a punishment.

This is the reason why then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger wrote to Cardinal McCarrick in Washington, DC, that Catholics may disagree with the Holy Father (at that time John Paul II) on the use of the death penalty and remain Catholics in good conscience.

I don't believe, therefore, that the article is currently a fair statement of the Catholic Church's teaching on capital punishment and leaves the false impression that the ONLY reason capital punishment may be inflicted is for defense against the criminal, and that Catholics cannot in good conscience conclude differently than John Paul II in their prudential judgment as citizens or officers of the State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs) 15:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Blast from the past - query about Occupation_of_Poland_(1939–45)
Hi there,

I was just browsing around Wikipedia and came across a page Occupation_of_Poland_(1939–45) which has been heavily "monstered" by the copyright detector. After peering through the "copyright detector report" (as there is nothing but report on the page now) it highlighted a large chunk of text you added eons ago in - 00:23, 17 March 2007‎.

It implies that it may have been copied from this site:

http://www.ushmm.org/learn/students/learning-materials-and-resources/poles-victims-of-the-nazi-era/terror-against-the-intelligentsia-and-clergy

Knowing how these things go, chances are this site may have lifted it from Wikipedia and not cited it but I wondered if you might have any thoughts on the subject? The search term I used to get this far was "Litzmannstadt" which wasn't there before this edit (this saves a bit of effort comparing things).

Currently the page is worthless without fixing his issue up.

Thanks Escottf (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright
Hello Pseudo-Richard, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to July 2006 Java earthquake has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Compare your add with the source – It's word for word (Cars, motorbikes and boats were left mangled amid fishing nets, furniture and other debris.) Thank you. Dawnseeker2000  03:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Repost of Anti-Judaism in early Christianity
Oops, never mind, my mistake! -- Kendrick7talk 06:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Thanks. BoBoMisiu (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Maybe centuries from now, scholars will debate who was the real Richard and who was the pseudo-Richard. But probably not..." ... You sir are a self important twit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.155.81.55 (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mmmm... and you, sir, have an insufficient sense of humor. --2601:646:C300:66EC:1865:8AA9:9A1A:8ED1 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually think you might be right about that. I think I'm just an angry person, and I'm not sure what compelled me to troll through wikipedia talk pages this morning in the first place - a lapse in judgement. No longer feeling very angry and questioning my own behavior, I actually came back here to remove that. I'm sorry. I think this http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory is real and I'm not sure what came over me. 184.155.81.55 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Harry Chapin Foundation


Hello, Pseudo-Richard. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Harry Chapin Foundation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As a heads up, a student editor has deleted much of the article Spanish missions in the Americas and replaced it with material of questionable quality. I've corrected a few obvious errors in the student's edit of the article, but more needs to be done. You contributed most of the good material that was formerly in the article. If I knew how to do it I would restore the article to what it was before the students took a carving knife to it. If this subject still interests you, take a look at the present article and see what might be done.Smallchief (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Harry Chapin Foundation


Hello, Pseudo-Richard. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Harry Chapin Foundation".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As a heads up, a student editor has deleted much of the article Spanish missions in the Americas and replaced it with material of questionable quality. I've corrected a few obvious errors in the student's edit of the article, but more needs to be done. You contributed most of the good material that was formerly in the article. If I knew how to do it I would restore the article to what it was before the students took a carving knife to it. If this subject still interests you, take a look at the present article and see what might be done.Smallchief (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking
User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and banking during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance
User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Pseudo-Richard/Antisemitic canards related to money, banking and finance during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Jayjg (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Pseudo-Richard/Allegations of Jewish control of the media
User:Pseudo-Richard/Allegations of Jewish control of the media, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pseudo-Richard/Allegations of Jewish control of the media and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User:Pseudo-Richard/Allegations of Jewish control of the media during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and money


A tag has been placed on User:Pseudo-Richard/Jews and money, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at articles for deletion. (See section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) If a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
 * It appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
 * It is a draft which has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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 deleted 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. Jayjg (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Pseudo-Richard/Economic Jew stereotype


A tag has been placed on User:Pseudo-Richard/Economic Jew stereotype requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"WP:STALEDRAFT and CSD:G4. Copy of material taken from article deleted at Articles for deletion/Economic history of the Jews in 2011. Never edited since, and user hasn't edited in 4 years"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jayjg (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Pseudo-Richard/Peace and war in Judaism


A tag has been placed on User:Pseudo-Richard/Peace and war in Judaism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"WP:STALE. Created in 2010 and not edited since. Used hasn't edited since 2015. Article exists in mainspace."

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jayjg (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)