User talk:Vaquero100

Talk Archive 01

Talk Archive 02

RCC page should be moved to CC page
Sir/Father: I have posted my comments on WikiProject_Catholicism/To-do_list and desire to see the page transferred from RCC to CC. My reasons are more philosophically and logically grounded than theological. I find it funny that everyone seems to want to put a NPOV on a subject (religion) which is inherently always a POV. But that's not my point. There is a certain dishonesty about all this due to competing claims of other editors who are not Catholics. Like I said in the link above, when it comes to religion - it is always a point of view - and it should be written first and foremost from the POV of the religion in question. Hey I may not like your religion or believe it but I do respect what they teach even if I might disagree with it. And that is my point. I feel that it is intellectually absurd, when it comes to religion, to always find a neutral ground - you can only do that to science. I believe that the best way is for it to be written by its members. Then, add a section of criticism of the CC, by other editors. I have had acquaintances who are Orthodox and Protestants and Anglicans and Lutherans-and since this topic came up- and I asked them if they are Catholic in anyway (not defining the word Catholic) and the reactions are always the same: to call themselves Catholics, or refer to themselves as Catholics is simply inconceivable. That is the simple test of self-identification. So as far as I am concerned, as are a lot of people, people identify the word Catholic as being a member loyal to the Pope (and we know who that is). And yet the other editors of the page insist that Anglicans are also Catholics - a tenuous proposition based solely on the Nicene Creed. I have also visited the sites of the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of Canterbury and they identify themselves as Orthodox and Anglican - I don't seem to find any trace of them calling themselves Catholic. The same goes to various Protestants (just too many of them). The only people that seems to call themselves or identify themselves as "Catholic" are the SSPX, Traditionalists and some sedevacantists.

I wish your Catholic collaborators would do a concerted effort to change the name to its proper naming - your only problem is that you are outgunned and outsmarted. It would seem some Catholic contributors also do not have the fortitude to do battle in this arena. My other critique is also that some editors make some sections overly complicated and highly specialized - fit for a journal but not an encyclopedia.

I guess I have become bogged down on this article only because I find it interesting since Pope JPII died. The article of Judaism suffer, more or less, from the same pernicious problem. Islam on the other hand suffers from vandalism. I would like to contribute to Judaism later on and Islam also but it seems I'm a dog pre-occupied with chewing a bone the size of Godzilla right now.

You might not be the best person to have written to effect the changes but I am drawn by your logical reasoning. I just wish other editors have studied philosopy and symbolic logic under communist teachers or at least atheists or at least have the decency to accept logical reasoning - wikipedia would be much better if that were true.

I hope we can find a way of moving this forward because I find it annoying. The Eastern Catholics, for the record, also do not identify themselves as Roman, but as simply Catholics - I think they deserve to be free from persecution in here too.

If you wish to discuss this by email for convenience, I am willing to accommodate you.

Respectfully yours, Dr mindbender 07:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cults
Over at list of groups referred to as cults I have been unable to make headway explaining why "cult of Mary" is not a group; perhaps you would like to give it a try? Gimmetrow 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Relegating Traditionalism
Why was traditionalism relegated from high importance to mid? The dislocation of many Catholics and the decline of the Church (in the developed world) after Vatican II is probably the central narrative of Catholicism at the moment. JASpencer 13:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Traditionalist movement is treated quite seriously within the Vatican, witness the fact that the SSPX were one of only three topics in the recent Bishop's synod. The fallout from Vatican II is the most important fact of Catholic life for many people around the world (hence the Top rating for Vatican II) and so the primary criticism of Vatican II really should be understood, even if it is rejected, by anyone who wants more than a passing knowledge of the Church. JASpencer 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the "roman"
I know you are frustrated. But please be patient. I urge you to stop removing the word "Roman" from in front of links as you did at English Reformation. The main page name has still not changed yet, and a compromise has yet to be reached. I know it is frustrating, but do you see anyone going around ADDING the word "Roman" while this debate is ongoing? Then why should we allow removal of the word while the debate is ongoing. I called for a hault of all edits regarding the title of the church in question while the debate is ongoing. I hope we can all still hold off a bit longer. --Andrew c 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

re:Comment from Vaquero100
I already informed you how I got involved with the RCC vs. CC debate. I was helping clearn up Sacred Heart (which I believe WAS a "significant contributions of additional material"), and you came along with the sole purpose of removing the word "Roman" from links, because you couldn't get consensus to change the ACTUAL name of the article. As for my "need to tinker and get your finger prints all over the place", I believe that is a gross exageration. How many Catholic articles have I edited in the past 2 weeks? I have recently been trying to improve the main Roman Catholic Church introduction. You have to agree with me that it is in pretty poor shape. It seems like it is missing a first paragraph because there is no dictionary style definition in the opening. The use of quoted material from Lumen Gentium may also not be in line with style guides, as discussed by other editors on talk. I am working on rewriting the last paragraph, and as of now, I have support from at least one editor. Not being an expert on a topic is no reason for someone to not contribute to wikipedia (I mean, it is the encyclopedia that ANYONE can edit). If you want an encyclopedia written by experts, go elsewhere. If you want an encyclopedia that is favorable to the topics, there is a project for that as well. It doesn't take a ordained priest to recognize POV issues, style issues, etc. Except for the "His Holiness" business, I don't think I've butted heads with you recently, so I don't know why you still have anger and rage aimed towards me. Maybe you should explain your feelings towards me?--Andrew c 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added the word Roman close to a hundred times? One night, weeks ago, after encountering you at Sacred Heart, I went through your recent edits and REVERTED your removal of Roman. Then on July the 3rd, I called for everyone to STOP editing in that manner while the debate was on going. And now you are claiming that I have added the word Roman to close to a hundred different articles (where the word Roman wasn't removed by you in the first place?) Seriously, how many times have I edited in that manner since July the 3rd? You are still mad at me for my reverts that happened over a month ago? Talk about holding a grudge. I seriously do not know how to respond to you, nor do I have any idea how to work things out with you. (and FYI, I have always edited topics related to Christianity, in fact my first edit was on a Christian topic, and back in May I participated in a RfC on Traditionalist Catholic, and there have been other edits as well. I don't see why you are trying to fault me for what articles I choose to edit).--Andrew c 18:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Captions and ecclesiastical heraldry
The caption on the John XXIII pic was debated by Lima and Smith2006. Lima said the rubric in the old liturgy was "show" not "elevate." Since he's away thought you should know. Also, if you have a chance, could you provide some comments on ecclesiastical heraldry, an article I wrote and currently self-submitted for featured status. Gimmetrow 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you know nothing of heraldry, you would easily notice if terms are not introduced and explained well. Gimmetrow 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you. It was made a FA a few weeks ago, and today it was the Featured Article of the Day on WP's mainpage. As a result, there have been dozens of attempts to vandalize it since last night, but all have been caught and a few worthwhile contributions have been made as well. I'm proud of the article and I'm glad the Order is getting the recognition today. Thanks again! --Briancua 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Salvation
I found the Catholic section in the Salvation article to contain numerous misleading errors. I didn't feel qualified to attempt to change anything. If you could look into this, or notify someone involved with the Catholicism project, I would appreciate it.--Antelucan 00:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The more I look at this article, the more it appears heavily POV toward the Calvinist position and generally poorly written. I hope this can be brought to someone's attention because it has been bothering me a lot, and yet I am afraid to do anything about it myself, not being much of a wikipedian.--Antelucan 01:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, this Danras fellow is to blame for the POV. His comments on the talk page give away his intense bias and fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic soteriology.  Unfortunately his agenda is wreaking havoc on the article and is going unchecked.--Antelucan 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

re:Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Richmond, Virginia)

 * I noticed it was taken down as well, and I've been planning to shoot it, however the Cathedral currently has scaffolding all around the dome, so I was waiting for the construction/repair/restoration to be completed before taking a picture. However, if you think it is important to have an image, even if it has the scaffolding in it, I could probably get one up as soon as tomorrow. Otherwise, I'll just wait it out.--Andrew c 01:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Self-Identification of the Catholic Church
I dropped out of "the name of the Catholic Church" debate after bringing forward the significant question of self-identification. Perhaps my evaluation of the other side is incorrect, but I felt that they were no longer continuing in good faith but playing games with me, making it just a waste of my time. I hope and pray that the editing consensus changes in the future. patsw 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sacraments_of_the_Catholic_Church
Hello Father. They are voting on whether to change the name of Sacraments of the Catholic Church. I support your move. Maybe you would like to review the proposal. --WikiCats 14:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

re:Thanks
I seriously do not appreciate your tone and accusations. Please read my reasoning behind the proposed move (they are on the requested move page, and the talk page, both places you never bothered to go when you made your move). It clearly states nothing about the RCC vs. CC debate. The only reason I proposed the move is because I couldn't revert what you had done. YOU are the one who made an out of process move, without consensus, without going to talk, etc. I needed an admin's help to revert that move. You need to VOTE FIRST, MOVE SECOND. I can't believe you are accusing me of bad faith edits, when YOU are the one who made the out of process move. Once again, this isn't about RCC vs CC, and I've mentioned on talk multiple times my exact reasoning. You made an out of process move and it needed to be reverted. If community consensus supports your move, then it wouldn't have hurt to take the vote first, now would it? Seriously, you need to calm down, and take a step back. As a side note, I have no idea from where you accusation about not "extending some basic human courtesy" is coming.--Andrew c 16:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Another move to add "Roman"
Categories_for_deletion Another move to add "Roman" SynKobiety 17:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_29 SynKobiety 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church_in_Great_Britain SynKobiety 04:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

User box
Hi Father. You can use this code if you want to change you user box.

--WikiCats 07:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't you use:


 * Would either or both require changing when the linkd article is renamed? -SynKobiety 13:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Canonical impediment
Hi, Vaquero. Would you be able to cite sources for Canonical impediment? (I'm assuming you're the first author of the article.) Some of the impediments to ordination are from documents other than the Code of Canon Law, so I'm not able to provide references myself. Chonak 07:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply; fyi, I've moved it from my main page to my talk page. Chonak 08:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Full communion
I made a mistake in the caption of my latest edit: "my last two edits" should have read: "my last edit and the last pre-Vaquero edit". Lima 08:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Vaquero. You forgot to sign your last post in Talk:Roman Catholic Church. (I did 2 small fixes in it). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 5th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Do not edit someone else's talk page edits
Please refrain from editing someone else's talk page edits, as you did in. --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Assistance
Father I am a Knight of the Southern Cross. I would be pleased if you would email me. --WikiCats 13:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Welcoming Congregation" restructuring
Please see my comment on reorganization of the "Welcoming Congregation" topic (replying there). Thanks! --Haruo 07:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Roman Catholic Church
Stirring this mess back up with borderline personal attacks is not going to do anything but disrupt the project. Please refrain from making uncivil remarks on talk pages. Thanks. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 01:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per your comments on my talk page, I am dismayed that you think I am part of a conspiracy to rob the Catholic Church, of which I am a member, of its proper title by superimposing "Roman" onto it. If you go through the archives you'll find I spoke out in preference of the name Catholic Church, which I agree is the proper name. My point in contacting you had nothing to do with what terminology I think should be used, but rather to point out that referring to one's rhetorical opponents as "bitter anti-Catholic hounds" whose actions are "wicked" appears to be uncivil. Whether the RCC name violates WP policy or not, violating it again with uncivil personal attacks is not the solution. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Diocesan Infobox
To the WikiProject Catholicism members

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Possible renaming of WikiProject Saints
It has been suggested that the above named project be renamed WikiProject Christian saints. Please express your opinion on this proposed renaming, and the accompanying re-definition of the scope of the project, here. John Carter 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism's links with political authorities
I noticed you made a number of comments on the talk page of this article, which is little more than a POV laden hit piece on Catholicism. It's also completely without references and largely original research. (Just a few of its problems, as you know). I don't know whether it could be sourced, made nonselective in the subjects it covers and saved as a real encyclopedia article. It probably should be nominated for deletion. Any thoughts? Mamalujo 00:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Fr. Basil Moreau, CSC.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Fr. Basil Moreau, CSC.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Maundy Thursday vs Holy Thursday
This point is still being hotly debated. If you're still interested in this matter, you may want to read the current discussion and opine. Thanks and best wishes. --Boston (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholic Church article naming
Vaquero. I have linked your excellent article on the use of the name Catholic Church for the current RCC article into the discussion on this change currently going on on at Talk:Roman Catholic Church. I hope this is okay. Feel free to add to the discussion.  Xan  dar  23:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Victorian Archtecture
Hi ! An article you have been concerned with has many  issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you  can, and leave any  comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Canon Law
Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 19:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

AfD
Please see Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian) since you contributed to the article.Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012
 In this issue...

- Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia &bull; It is published by WikiProject Christianity For submissions contact the Newsroom &bull; To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here
 * From the Editor
 * What are You doing For Lent?
 * Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
 * Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion
I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Basilica of Our Lady of Copacabana, Bolivia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Basilica of Our Lady of Copacabana, Bolivia.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. Kelly hi! 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Porter Adventist Hospital, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sisters of St. Francis. 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) 10:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Catholic Commons
I would consider Catholic Commons to be a good start toward this eventual goal. Jzsj (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Saint Dismas Prison Ministry
Please check the delete notice on Saint Dismas Prison Ministry which you recommended; perhaps you know how to prove its notability. Jzsj (talk) 13:58, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pishtaco, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aymara ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Pishtaco check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Pishtaco?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list
Hi Vaquero100! It is a pleasure to meet you! The page: WikiProject Catholicism/To-do list has been recently updated with a much needed cleanup! I appreciate all of the work you have been doing on Catholic-related efforts on Wikipedia! If possible, feel free to browse and see some of the new changes going on within the portal! Twillisjr (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Family Theater Productions for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Family Theater Productions 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/Family Theater Productions until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of St Gregory's High School for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article St Gregory's High School 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/St Gregory's High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Lunush01 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Holy Cross School (Salem, India) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Holy Cross School (Salem, India) 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/Holy Cross School (Salem, India) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Ram Dhaneesh (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica.jpg


The file File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Near duplicate of File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica 3.jpg. Image tilt fixed in other file."

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. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 03:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica 2.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica 2.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica 3.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Azlan Nache St. Peter's Basilica 3.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, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 01:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bandura Holy Cross School & Collage


The article Bandura Holy Cross School & Collage has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Unsourced since creation in 2006. No evidence of notability. The only thing I found was Facebook."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 07:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

"Roman Catholic Concept of the Divine" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Roman Catholic Concept of the Divine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 22 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Catholic sacraments (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catholic sacraments (disambiguation) 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/Catholic sacraments (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Veverve (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Religious calling into Vocation, December 2023
Dear Father, greetings! I have proposed the merger of Religious calling into Vocation, an article to which you have previously contributed. I would be grateful for any comments you might have in the merger discussion section. Happy editing! IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miriam Ashram High School


The article Miriam Ashram High School has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NSCHOOL."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Biroidakuni High School


The article Biroidakuni High School has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page 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.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)