User talk:Savidan/Archive 9

Galeotto della Rovere
Good Day, Is there a problem with uploading this image to Commons? I would like to use it on the Afrikaans wiki. If not on commons how can I use it on the Afrikaans wiki. Thanks for you help. Hansjoseph (talk) 13:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you determine that the images are sufficiently "free" to meet the Commons' copyright policy, please feel free to upload them to Commons. I personally choose to focus my efforts on the English Wikipedia due to time limitations, and that is the only reason I haven't uploaded it to commons myself. As I am not the copyright holder, you do not need my permission. Savidan 13:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Information conflict
We appear to have a conflict of facts in our articles. Foreign relations of Pope Pius XII states: "Harada was accepted by Pius XII on May 31, 1942.", citing a New York Times. "Tokyo Envoy Received by Pope", while Ken Harada states: "as officially received on May 9, 1942.", citing Pierre Blett's "Pius XII and the Second World War: According to the Archives of the Vatican", which we both utilize as a source. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Papal election, 1268–1271
I have done a GA Reassessment of the Papal election, 1268–1271 article as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to nearly meet the GA Criteria. It is lacking in a couple of places and I have outlined my concerns here. I have placed the article on hold for a week and I am notifying you as the primary editor of the hold. If you have questions please contact me on my talk page and I will be happy to discuss the review. H1nkles (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Query: DYK for Alperin v. Vatican Bank
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Papee
You are very welcome. BTW good job with the article. Tymek (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Conversion of Jews to Catholicism during the Holocaust
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Assata Shakur
I have reverted your reversions and opened a discussion of them on the Talk page of the Assata Shakur article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.213.239 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:FOUR
Thanks for the nominations at WP:FOUR. We hope to keep the backlog down by having each nominator second one of the other nominations for each nomination that he makes. If you get a chance please come by and award some nominations.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything to that effect when I was there, but I'm more than happy to. Savidan 00:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:WP:FOUR
Thank you for the award. It was a totaly unexpected surprise. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment for Papal conclave, 1492
I have conducted a reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Papal conclave, 1492/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as you have been a major contributor to the article. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Stepinac
Hello Savidan, my apologies for the belated response and thanks for your recognition of my efforts in the article. :) I am unfortunately not in possession of any significant source on Stepinac himself, I am far more knowledgeable in the history of Yugoslavia itself than Church-related information. My source was also not on Stepinac himself, but rather about the nature of the forced conversions that took place with respect to Stepinac's statement that they were "all in good faith" (rather silly, that :). As I do not have sources, I've restricted my edits on that article to fixing what I believe is a big problem: a lack of neutral wording and an NPOV in general. Besides that, I've also gotten to making general improvements in the article (a more appropriate infobox/succession box, native language name, etc...).

The main cause of the problem is that the man is a controversial figure. Some circles in Croatia literally worship the fellow and, as he had been beatified, refuse to acknowledge anything "negative" about him. The article was originally written in an anti-Yugoslav, Croatian nationalist tone (I am Croatian :), rife with bias in his favor. For instance, "Yugoslav army" became "Tito's communists", "Yugoslav court system" became the "communist Belgrade court", Yugoslav judicial authorities were simply "the communists", President Josip Broz Tito became "communist dictator Tito", etc. you get it... -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 19:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean, facts need sources, but what I'm talking about is the wording. While the facts were mostly correct (though many are unsourced), the phrasing of the article was (and probably still is) quite a bit biased. I shall endeavor to keep the text neutral, and yes, that also means keeping away from the other side as well. :) -- DIREKTOR  ( TALK ) 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of cardinal-nephews
Hi, it seems that we've got a problem with on that list. Any idea?? CarlosPn (talk) 10:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've temporarily replaced this file with Question mark.svg till something better will be found CarlosPn (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of references
Why do you make edits like this? Its hard for me to see the value of importing text from elsewhere on Wikipedia and then nuking the references. Savidan 16:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This version shows that the references ph36 doesn't show up properly on the article. I figured that the material was already covered in Phayer, 2000, p. 37. and that it didn't necessarily need to be added. See the previous column called media bias in the United States where the same thing happens with another ref called StephenZunesFPIC ADM (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apocalypse War
Evidently this was never listed in the deletion log. I closed it today. You are free to nominate individual articles but be aware that mass AfDs tend to attract their own 'keep' votes regardless of content. Also note that there is considerable variation between articles you listed. Some (like Horus Heresy) have seen deletion debates before and are borderline. Others are obviously notable, and still others obviously not notable. Just a heads up. Protonk (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Apocalypse War

DYK nomination of William Kunstler
Hello! Your submission of William Kunstler at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Pope Pius XII -> Pius XII
I did a history merge on the Pope Pius XII article, so that all edits are in one place. I'm not trying to change the naming conventions for popes - IMO they're fine as they are. Graham 87 14:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pope Sisinnius
Hello! Your submission of Pope Sisinnius at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Participation in Wikipedia Research
Savidan,

Your Request for Adminship (RfA) process was reviewed and studied by our research team at Carnegie Mellon University early in our project to gain insights into the process. We reviewed what voters discussed about your case, and what qualifications you brought to the table as a candidate. In total 50 cases were personally read and reviewed, and we based our further research questions in part on your case.

In continuing our research, I would like to personally invite you to participate in a survey we are conducting to get perspective from people who have participate in the RfA process. The survey will only take a few minutes of your time, and will aid furthering our understanding of online communities, and may assist in the development of tools to assist voters in making RfA evaluations. We are NOT attempting to spam anyone with this survey and are doing our best to be considerate and not instrusive in the Wikipedia community. The results of this survey are for academic research and are not used for any profit nor sold to any companies. We will also post our results back to the Wikipedia community.

This survey is part of an ongoing research project by students and faculty at the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science and headed by Professor Robert Kraut.

Take the survey

Thank you!

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free comment on my talk page.

CMUResearcher (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Vatican in faction
Hi, this battle seems to be won, but can you think of any additions to Category:Films set in the Vatican and Category:Vatican in fiction? Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Pope John VI
Hello! Your submission of Pope John VI at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Javért ☆ 02:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tomb of Popes Leo II III IV.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Tomb of Popes Leo II III IV.jpg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

'See copyright notice from the source website. (quote) © Copyright notice The contents of this site are for personal-educational use only. Neither text nor images may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the respective copyright holders.

This independent website is not endorsed by or associated with the Vatican, the Fabbrica of St. Peter's, or any business organization

Contact: stpetersbasilica@gmail.com (unquote)'

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on  explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. 80.163.68.22 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Big Apple Pothole and Sidewalk Protection Committee
If you want a great pic, take the camera to street level, set it on the ground and take photo as if you were that small. That would look really cool. Mitch 32(The Password is... See here!) 09:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tomb of Antipope John XXIII
Hello! I've translated into polish your article "Tomb of Antipope John XXIII", and I'm not sure if everything in paragraph "Commissioning" is correct.

You write:

"The long and complicated history of the relic would only have increased the legendary status of the finger: Philotheus Kokkinos, Patriarch of Constantinople presented it in 1363 to Pope Urban V, who passed it to his successors Gregory XI and Urban VI, who was dispossessed of it during the siege of Nocera, after which John XXII bought it for 800 florins and wore it on his person before hiding it in the monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli."

However, Urban V became Pope in 1362, and John XXII in 1316, and in consequence, mentioned succession line is impossible. In Esperanto Wikipedia in the same place in text I found John XXIII instead of XXII. Is this correct, and the finger was bought by Antipope John XXIII himself? Here you can find link to my discussion. Regards, Bambosz Karate, Polish Wikipedia Project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.186.172 (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you are right. This must just have been a typo on my part. Antipope John XXIII was the purchaser. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Savidan 12:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tomb of Antipope John XXIII (again)
Hello again. This time I have a problem with Cossa's year of birth. All sources (and Wikipedia itself) available to me except your article state, that he was born "circa 1470". You write, that he was born "circa 1460". What's the source of this difference? Or is this another typo? Regards, Bambosz Karate, Polish Wikipedia Project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.74.246.212 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I really couldn't tell you; I no longer have any of the books in front of me. I would caution against the use of Wikipedia as a source (the Antipope John XXIII article is uniformly horrible), but if you find something published that says 1470, feel free to change it. Savidan 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

the REAL DYK for Vatican City during World War II
this was on my talkpage, and I believe this belongs to you as it used your suggestion instead of mine.

Italics
Hi. Sorry about italicizing too much. It's a bad habit I have to break. Thanks for your help. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:List of the creations of the cardinals
Thnx for info. Actually I see no reason for separate articles about each consistory. Neither article includes any special content apart from the names of the newly created cardinals. I'll suggest to merge these articles into one. BTW, I'd like to pay your attention on the sections about "presumed cardinals" in the existed articles about creations of the cardinals. The question of the cardinalate of Giovanni Visconti, Bishop of Sabina, is, I think, resolved definitevely, strenghtening a contesting view on the story about "pope elect Gregory X". I've originally planned to create one huge article about "presumed or fictitious cardinals", but working on it, I've revealed that their catalog itself would contain several hundred names, and some cases would require detailed examination. Currently I list them as separate sections to the articles about the creations under the respective pontificates but perhaps some general article as lead to the topic should be created. What's your opinion? Any remarks to current stands of these sections would also be welcomed CarlosPn (talk) 21:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FAC Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos
Thanks for the useful comments on the Chiquitos missions article. As you know much more about colonial history than me, I was wondering if you could help improving the history section of the article. bamse (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am rather busy, and already forced to cut back on many substantive contributions I would like to make. For this reason, I tried not to burden you with any objections that I didn't think were imminently actionable. Nor did I mean to imply that these sections overall were bad. It's really just a few problematic words and sentences. Savidan 14:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Will try to fix the problematic words and phrases. It might take some time though. bamse (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vatican City
Actually, even the medieval popes, and pre-medieval popes, will probably reasonably qualify as part of the Vatican City project. They were all related to the history of the area that currently falls within the borders of the Vatican, and are thus relevant to the history of the state as per Vatican City. And, of course, if they played any role in the structures, facilities, etc., within the Vatican, they would qualify on that basis as well. However, please also note that I am ensuring that each article also be tagged with for Christianity and Catholicism, yes, even the ones about pagan statues in the Vatican. The reasons are pretty much the same. If they relate to the Vatican, they also relate to Catholicism and Christianity. Also, they are all within one or more of the extant subcats of Category:Vatican City. There are really two purposes to this tagging. One is to assess and tag for the Vatican City group, the other is to provide the statistics page of the project, which will with luck be used in determining which articles are included in the Portal:Pope and Portal:Vatican City. There, the intention is to focus more on the items not directly related to the papacy for the Vatican City portal, but, first, we'd have to know if there is enough material to concentrate like that. And, of course, if the people who deal with Catholicism also want to consider this group as being, in effect, the papacy subproject, they will be more than welcome to do so. John Carter (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what is meant by the question. What is being tagged is the articles within the Category:Vatican City and its subcats, which includes only a comparatively small part of the entire Category:Catholicism. So, for instance, Augustine of Hippo, Thomas More, and anyone else who had nothing to do with the papacy in any immediate sense, is not an article I anticipate getting tagged for the Vatican, because they wouldn't be in those categories, nor would any other article not relating to Catholicism not directly involved with the papacy. Regarding the popes who reigned elsewhere, including the Lateran and Avignon, I guess the answer is that they would probably be tagged as well. I think the other "national" projects tend to consider people in a "government in exile" as still being part of the government. And, yes, even those popes "off the res" would still be eligible for inclusion in the Portal:Popes, so it would probably make sense to add them to the statistics page which will probably be used in selecting the content for it.
 * I am in fact working on trying to get all the Christianity related portals on a rotating content schedule, to help ensure that we don't have the same article appear on two different portals at the same time, and that all the featured content gets included somewhere. The portals I din't have statistics for yet were the Pope portal and the comparatively new VC portal, and that's why I'm doing the tagging now. With any luck, hopefully within a week or so, I hope to be contacting the various managers of the other portals to see if there is some way we can maximize the quality content being included in the portals.
 * Now that I've got my edittools working again, I'm also going to try to ensure that the articles also get tagged and assessed for any other active projects which might be relevant to that article, so that they know of them as well. So any other sculptures and paintings will be tagged for Visual Arts, for instance. But, in general, yeah, the more people interested in an article, the better it's chances. John Carter (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Greuze-catholic.jpg
File:Greuze-catholic.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Greuze-catholic.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) 06:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award
As a past WP:FOUR awardee you may wish to comment at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Joan Davis (disambiguation)
Hello. Just to let you know that this dab has been nominated for speedy deletion using Template:db-disambig. If you have any further questions, please let me know. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Burials at St Peter's Basilica
Thank you for your comment; actually, it's not a category I created. I came across it in passing, noticed it was very incomplete and started the work of filling in the gaps. It was late so I wasn't going to do it all in one sitting. You are very welcome to help in completing this task!! --The Sage of Stamford (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Catacomb of Priscilla and San Martino ai Monti
I have attacked the article on priscilla and made minor changes to san martino. The information provided under priscilla about the burial of popes was totally confusing and it was not at all clear how this was related to priscilla. Roundtheworld (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Scouting elections
You are receiving this notice as an active member of WikiProject Scouting. To change your status as a member, please edit WikiProject Scouting/Members.

Rlevse is retiring as our lead coordinator; see Stepping down as ScoutingWikiProject Lead Coordinator. Election for a new coordinator will be held after the new year. If you are interested in nominating yourself or another editor, please add the name to Project coordinator election.

Yours in Scouting

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One sided secondary sources for Pius XII-related articles?
Don't you think you rely too heavily on works that are critical of Pius XII such as Michael Phayer and the Roth/Rittner book? Phayer's book was heavily criticized in a review for Inside the Vatican magazine and then republished in the Dalin/Bottum anthology, "The Pius War." Lots of authors reflecting different points of view have written on Pius XII, not just in English, but in Italian, French, and German. I know different authors will interpret the evidence differently, and this makes it for difficult to construct Wikipedia entries in this area, but it's a disservice to readers to present the views of one or two authors as the definitive work on the subject, not acknowledge criticisms of their work, and pretend that authors who defend Pius XII belong in UFO land.JohnScott2 (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dalin is a rabbi publishing with an openly political publisher; Phayer is a professor publishing in a university press; I do not believe that Dalin's criticism of Phayer rises to the level that it must be appended to every article where Phayer is cited. However, as to the secondary sources commenting on each other, I consider that for the most part relevant only to the articles about the secondary sources, unless it is directly applicable to the subject of the article in question. I have drawn from a wide variety of books, including Blet and Graham who I believe have a substantially different point of view than Phayer, Roth, and Rittner. Unfortunately, I am unable to read Italian, French, or German. However, especially in my recent creation of daughter articles, it has been my intent to open up space for others to add any sourced material they feel I have overlooked, whether from the sources I have been able to utilize or additional ones. Savidan 08:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The criticism of Phayer was included in a book co-edited by Dalin. He didn't write it himself. The review was written by Father John Jay Hughes, a church historian who is fluent in German (as Phayer is). See http://books.google.com/books?id=XRAD4-xMqysC&pg=PA59&dq=john+jay+hughes+phayer&ei=FMMcS_78ApCuzQTJ9pGXBw#v=onepage&q=john%20jay%20hughes%20phayer&f=false

Graham's work is certainly referenced [in the entry on the 11 volumes], but then its dismissed by citing one opinion, Phayer's.JohnScott2 (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear: I am not opposed to citing Dalin in any and all articles (in fact, I have cited him myself on several points). I am merely saying that the existence of such a source does not instantly discredit all of what Phayer has written. If that were so, it would be impossible to write about this topic, as nearly every secondary source takes a few shots at the others, to say nothing of the reviews published in periodicals and on the web. Father Hughes' review may be relevant to an article about any secondary sources he reviews as well as any topics he addresses specifically. As for whether Graham's view is "dismissed", I think that is solely in the eye of the beholder; both views have been presented and the reader can decide. Savidan 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS in Brazil
Hello Savidan. HIV/AIDS in Brazil is on WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps worklist and instead of reviewing it, I wanna let you know the problems to it. Its good, but two or three References are dead. So you should fix the problems to keep its GA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. However, as a result of my shortage of time to spend on Wikipedia, I have decided not to maintain the "Good articles" that I wrote over the past few years. Invariably, the priorities of the reviewers do not correspond with my own. You'll notice on that particular article that there was already a reviewer a couple of months ago demanding some information that to my knowledge is not published. Savidan 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Savidan! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 8 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Carolyn Johnson -
 * 2) Sushil Wadhwani -
 * 3) Luis Llosa -
 * 4) Susan Ruskin -
 * 5) Verna Harrah -
 * 6) Nancy Rosen -
 * 7) Michael McKeon -
 * 8) Paula Grant-Berry -
 * Frankly, none of these articles are worth saving from deletion, and the first one is just an article an anon created over my redirect. I don't think there would be much value added. Savidan 19:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

GAR notification
Hello, letting you know I've opened a good article reassessment on an article you heavily contributed to, Giovinezza. You can read a list of (relatively minor) concerns at Talk:Giovinezza/GA1. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of policy debaters


The article List of policy debaters has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HJ Mitchell |  fancy a chat?   21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

JAG
When you moved JAG to JAG (TV series) and then changed the old title to a redirect, you apparently did not consider the fact that over 500 other articles on Wikipedia contain links to JAG, most of them obviously referring to the TV series. As this guideline states, when you change the target of an existing title, "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." Your assistance in completing this task would be appreciated. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "JAG" currently the redirects to the disambiguation page, so anyone looking for the TV series will not long be foiled. I haven't actually "usurped" the title in the sense of that guideline because I did not create a new page at that title. Unfortunately, I do not have to the time or capability to go through and manually change 500 links. But I still couldn't allow a TV series derivative of an organization to usurp the TLA of that organization. I hope you will understand. Savidan 14:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:HIV/AIDS by country
I have nominated hiv/aids by country for renaming to hiv and aids by country. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Struggle Against Violent Extremism
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tomb of Pope Alexander VII.JPG
A tag has been placed on File:Tomb of Pope Alexander VII.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tomb of Pope Benedict XV.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Tomb of Pope Benedict XV.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 10:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Tomb of Pope Innocent XII.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Tomb of Pope Innocent XII.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

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 the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Frankish Papacy
Hello! Your submission of Frankish Papacy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Papal travel
Hello! Your submission of Papal travel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Storye book (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Orsen/Pope confusion
Apologies, I did not realise it was not the Pope. Claireislovely (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Peter Curtin


The article Peter Curtin has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This BLP has been unsourced since creation in 2006, and is of quite questionable notability, despite the large number of roles, most appear to be extras.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for reverting my edits on the Papal conclave, 1378-article. For some reason that article looded very odd on my screen, so I tried to edit it in a better way. But strange enough, the odd version was not the real version, thus you did revert it in a good manner.Jeff5102 (talk) 07:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Placidia Palace
Glad to be of help! If you need any further input on Byzantine-related issues, feel free to ask! Very nice article, BTW. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Placidia Palace
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rock for the Rainforest
Hello! Your submission of Rock for the Rainforest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! White Shadows There goes another day 14:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rock for the Rainforest
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK Kirby Company
I don't see the article being expanded 5 fold. C T J F 8 3 chat 18:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Give back the land
Hi. Just wondering if there is a specific point to the creation of the "give back the land" redirect? Seems rather POVish. Cheers. Taroaldo (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a slogan related to Indigenous land rights. I suppose all slogans are "rather POVish"...can't argue with you on that one. Savidan 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of neutrality, could it be deleted? Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think not. Redirects are not articles. If someone types in a common phrase, neutral or not, they deserve to get to what they are looking for. Savidan 18:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Taroaldo (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think is is covered pretty well at REDIRECT, if you are interested. Savidan 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that reference. I don't recall reading that one before, so I learned something new today. And learning is always good. Taroaldo (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Aboriginal title
Hell of a job you did on the Aboriginal title article.Thelmadatter (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Juan Crow
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Juan Crow, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Kirby Company
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Aboriginal title
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ladies' night
The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)