User talk:Subdeacon16

License tagging for Image:Abbess Superior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Abbess Superior.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Brown
I assume that you did this edit. Please log in before doing any edits. I am concerned about your edits because I assume a considerable conflict of interest. Ie. essentially you are advertising. To explain the tags you keep removing: -- RHaworth 06:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * importance - Paulette belongs to two churches, but since you have not even provided links to articles about these churches, we have no way of knowing how important she is
 * unreferenced - links to the churches' own websites are not references - we want to see what people unconnected to Paulette think of her
 * uncat - to remove that tag was pure vandalism - you have not given the article any categories - so why do you remove the tag?

License tagging for Image:Metropolitan.22.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Metropolitan.22.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 04:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Resurrection_Eucharistic_Sunday_027.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Resurrection_Eucharistic_Sunday_027.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 12:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:FIG Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:FIG Logo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles needing revision
Hi Subdeacon16. I'm the one that's been putting tags on your articles for revisions and improvements. Not picking on you in particular, just came across the three of them while I was working to improve articles tagged with "Christian Religious Leaders" and William E. Brown, Paulette R. Brown and Archbishop Timothy Paul Baymon were some of the first I clicked on.

I appreciate the work that you've put into the articles at this point. You've done a great job with images and have been able to do a decent job of the biographical write-up of them. I have some concerns, though, as this is an encyclopedia. I've tagged all three articles for Cleanup, issues with Neutral point of view, and improper Source citing. Dry, encyclopaedic tone is what we're going for here. All three articles have a personally invested tone and tend to read like a resume or letter of recommendation at points.

I am a Christian, and I'm working with the Christianity Project to improve all Christianity-related articles. I sincerely hope you don't take this personally, as I mean to improve the overall quality of articles relating to Christianity. I hope we'll be able to work from here to get the three articles I mentioned up to standard.

If you have any questions or concerns, please let me know. Nswinton 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, Subdeacon16. As far as a starting point, it would be good to properly cite as much of the information on each article as you can.  Here is an example, look at this page: GCA.  Notice how as you scroll through the different parts, many of the facts are cited with a [1], [2], etc., and how they link down to the corresponding websites in the "References" section at the bottom?  You can learn when to make those references here and how to make them here (I use the templates, they're very easy to get used to).  You can learn how to add references fairly quickly, and they'll aid you considerably in the future when creating new articles.  1-2 good, well-cited sources can often make the difference between a speedy deletion and some gentle warnings about article quality when you're first getting going.


 * As far as further improvements, if you're able to get at least the main, critical information properly cited on your articles, I'd move in the direction of inviting other un-involved parties (other wikipedians who you don't know) to come visit your articles and ask them to discuss what improvements might need to be made to bring it up to a high-quality article. Here is a great article that will lay out how articles develop in quality, it will give you an idea of the scope of the improvements that many articles will need to go through in order to become encyclopedia-quality.  Currently, most of your articles (and frankly, a large portion of Wikipedia articles in general) are in the "Stub" - "Start" quality.  If you are able to get them up to "B" - "GA" range, you'll have done very well for yourself (those ratings are listed here).


 * Best of luck in the future. The more folks in the wikipedia community, the better.  It was good to see all the images in your articles as well.  Images improve the overall quality of articles greatly, in my opinion.  Let me know if you have any questions.  I'd be glad to try and proof-read your future edits for a Neutral point of view, or help out in any other area you'd like.  Good to hear back from you! Nswinton 17:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Abbess_Superior.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Abbess_Superior.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Paul Baymon
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Timothy Paul Baymon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Minister of Music
Another editor has added the  template to the article Minister of Music, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 07:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fellowship of Independent and Global Churches & Ministries, Inc.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Fellowship of Independent and Global Churches & Ministries, Inc., suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * No references from reliable third-party sources.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. { { Nihiltres | talk | log } } 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mount Zion Full Gospel Cathedral


The article Mount Zion Full Gospel Cathedral has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * not clear how this orphaned article meets notability guidelines, lacks any references to 3rd party sources

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. RadioFan (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Subdeacon16! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. 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 this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) William E. Brown -

File:PICT0552.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:PICT0552.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  23:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Archbishop Brown.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 19:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Resurrection Eucharistic Sunday 026.jpg


The file File:Resurrection Eucharistic Sunday 026.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) 01:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)