User talk:West Virginian/Archive 4

USRD Newsletter - Issue 3

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.

Active user verification
Hello,. Due to the high number of inactive users at WP:USRD, we are asking that you verify that you are still an active contributor of the project. To do so, please add an asterisk (*) after your name on WikiProject U.S. Roads/Newsletter/List. Users without one by the next issue in 2 weeks will be removed off the list and off the respective road projects as well. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks.  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 20:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Olympics WikiProject membership update
The Olympics WikiProject is performing a membership update to check for currently active and idle members.

Because your username appears on the members list, we kindly ask you visit this page and put your name under the appropriate section, using the code , in order to renew or cancel your membership.

The Olympics WikiProject team

USRD Newsletter - Issue 4

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 5

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Apologies for the late delivery,  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 04:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 6

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Fanny, West Virginia
I have added a "" template to the article Fanny, West Virginia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. Leftblank 12:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 7

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:True Color Seal of the State of West Virginia.png
Thank you for uploading Image:True Color Seal of the State of West Virginia.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Durin 13:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 8

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 19:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

House of Glücksburg?!
Whoa, desist! This is extremely contentions – while some of the British Royal Family are descended from the Glücksburg line, they aren't of the House of Glücksburg! They all belong to the House of Windsor, per Letters Patent from both George V and Elizabeth II. Thus these individuals should not be in the Category:House of Glücksburg DBD 14:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus, they're in the Category:Mountbatten-Windsor family, which itself is a subcategory of Category:House of Glücksburg (although I'd probably debate the correctness of this – I'd think it should be a linked category, rather than a sub-cat) DBD 14:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe is now the core topics collaboration
Thanks, Walkerma 04:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 9

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 16:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Cesare Borgia
Ciao! I removed the regnal titles from the Borgia biography, as they had nothing of reignal. Ciao and good work. --Attilios 14:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

kw.wikipedia.org / Bot flags
Hi Caponer,

I think the Bots on the cornish wikipeida should be flagged as such. At the moment the clutter Special:Recentchanges. Do you know who the bureaucrat for kw.wikipedia.org is? Heiko Evermann 20:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 10

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. — Vsh Bot (t • c) 04:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Request
I have a humble request. Please, if you don't mind, can you not continue adding "House of" links to the succession boxes of Scottish kings? at least not before John Balliol. Those dynasties are just nonsense, and adding them will only detract from articles. It is especially nonsense to distinguish between "House of Alpin" and "House of Dunkeld". See Talk:House of Dunkeld. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

An important letter
Dear roads editor,

You may have noticed some changes at WP:USRD lately. Some of them, like the cleanup templates and the stub templates, have been astounding and great. Unfortunately, others have been disturbing.

This has become evidenced by the departure of a few prominent editors at USRD, a few RFC's, and much fighting among USRD editors.

After the second RFC, many of us found the opportunity to take a step away from Wikipedia for a while--as a self-imposed wikibreak, or possibly on vacation.

The result of such introspection was that many of us were placing ourselves in a "walled garden" and on a self-imposed pedestal of authority over the roads department. Also, we were being hostile to a few users who were not agreeing with us.

In fact, IRC has been the main incarnation of this "walled garden." Decisions have been made there to conduct grudges and prejudices against a few valued USRD users with poor justification.

For this, we have come to apologize. We have come to ask your forgiveness.

In addition to this, we hope to work as one USRD team from now on and to encourage cooperation instead of the promotion of interests.

All users are welcome to collaborate on IRC, the newsletter, or anywhere else at USRD.

In the future, please feel free to approach us about any issues you may have.

Regards,

Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rschen7754 (talk - contribs)
 *  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats
 *  master son T - C
 * SonTalk
 * ( [ →]O - RLY?)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 11

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 21:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 12

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 22:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

House of Wettin
Hi Caponer;

There is not "House of Saxe-Meiningen" like there was a House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. It is much like having the "House of Spain" or the "House of Italy". The reason why we have a House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is that a ruler of the UK descended from the ducal family and that denoted which line of the House of Wettin that the family belonged to. The fact that all of these Saxe-Meiningens have that as their territorial designation renders them members of the House of Wettin ruling in Saxe-Meiningen, the line already having been identified. The are still members of the House of Wettin as they descend directly from it, rather than through a junior member as Albert, Prince Consort was. It doesn't make them a "House of Saxe-Meiningen" inasmuch as there isn't, as I said, a "House of Spain" or a "House of Italy". Charles 03:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 13

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —Rschen7754bot 19:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Inactivity check and news report
Hello, Caponer. We had a few urgent matters to communicate to you:
 * 1) Please update your information at WikiProject U.S. Roads/Participants, our new centralized participant list. Those who have not done so by October 20th will be removed.
 * 2) There are important discussions taking place at WT:USRD relating to whether WP:USRD, WP:HWY, or the state projects should hold the "power" in the roads projects.

Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 23:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

USRD Newsletter - Issue 14

 * Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here. —O bot  (t • c) 01:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

USRD inactivity notification
You have been declared inactive at USRD. If this is in error, feel free to restore yourself to the list, but only if you are truly active at USRD. Regards, Rschen7754 (T C) 21:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry templates
Hi Caponer;

I noticed an entry you made at Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria. Austria-Tuscany is all but an informal territorial designation, with not enough usage to make it "official" like Bourbon-Parma. Also, monarchs do not need to be linked with their full titles. According to WP:NC(NT), kings, emperors and their consorts are named Name of Place, holders of substantive titles and lesser sovereign titles are named Name, Title of Place and other royals are named Title Name of Place. Using these forms usually is shorter, link directly to the articles in question and cut down on the confusion that a newer editor might see when editing or looking through an ancestry template and seeing piped redirects. Earlier installations of the template were started according to WP:NC(NT) and it is a fairly standard approach to take when linking and also cuts down on entry times. Thank you for putting them in a great number of articles though, it really helps to connect these people directly to their ancestors. Happy editing! Charles 05:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay in response, no need to thank me though, thank you! It is great to see this information being added to these articles whose subjects are so closely linked to their ancestry. Charles 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again, Caponer. I have a suggestion about templates. Since there has been issue raised about the templates being unsightly (I disagree, of course) and large, I think we should be implementing three generation templates. That means dropping the template down a number and getting rid of slots 16 - 31. I think it would be a good compromise to the nay-sayers who want them gone complete. That way the ancestry to the great-grandparents is still known. See Regina, Crown Princess of Austria for an example and let me know what you think of it. Charles 00:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Caponer, I agree that the four generation ancestry should still be used, but usually not for cadet royals such as Archduchess Gabriella. A French Bourbon princess really is of little importance to her article. Monarchs, usually, can have the 4 generation templates. There has been a lot of resistance at least at Talk:Louis V of France for one. I can't remember where the other discussions were located, but there are a number of them around. For new implementations though, the 3 generation template should be used. I am not suggesting deleting the template, just only using it in special cases. The template does not even have to be changed, the four generation template can be used with slots 16 thru 31 removed. Charles 08:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I like it very much. Perhaps down the road (or even now?) Wiki will allow perhaps a template showing grandparents that you can click to expand to four generations. Can the colour of the box be made softer and more muted though? It is a little jarring. Charles 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

West Virginia
Your edits at West Virginia were reverted because WP:STATE makes no such distinction on population limits. Spencer would be notable, unlike earlier assumptions you made, because it is a county seat. Shinnston and Spencer also pass your latest criteria you placed in the edit summary because both have population numbers over 2,000 -- according to the articles themselves.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at WP:STATE, it states that it should be renamed to Important Cities and Towns but there is no guideline or basis on what defines "important" in this case. I believe that county seats should be accepted, along with statistically populated areas, if you have any other criteria, let me know.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 15:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at other states for comparisons and can't find a common set standard. Some states will exclude small communities, while others will include them. The towns listed on West Virginia have populations of over 2,000, so at least we don't have to worry about cherrypicking through the hundreds of small communities on the list :) I'm not for sure if it needs too much work right now until a standard can be made at WP:STATE.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Martinsburg Mall
Martinsburg Mall, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Martinsburg Mall satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Martinsburg Mall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Martinsburg Mall during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Condensing of ancestry template in British royalty biographical articles
Thank you for that. The diagram is ugly and disruptive. Masalai (talk) 02:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wessex Children
Dear Sir, you are cordially invited to join a discussion on this matter at WikiProject British Royalty. Yours in anticipation, DBD 16:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry of Viscount Severn
Hi Caponer;

I wanted to post here before I reverted the changes to the ancestry on the article. As the article is currently very short, I don't think it's a good idea to have the collapsible ancestry box because it interferes with the British Royal Family infobox on the side, automatically placing the edge of the ancestry box under the the infobox (which should act as a margin for everything beside it, but it doesn't). What do you think? I think it should be removed and left expanded (for now) to avoid the unsightly blank spot it leaves for the time that the article is very short. Also, regarding the titles of Prince Philip... I think he should be Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in the ancestry... Those titles are his in his own right, as opposed to a title by marriage (like queen or empress). Let me know, and happy editing :-) Charles 03:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Caponer, thanks for the quick reply. I am really unsure as to where the proper forum for discussion would be with regard to the ancestry templates... I would say Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Royalty, but that seems to be kind of slow, although, you could post on a few user talk pages asking for input at the discussion. I also have a discussion there that I am waiting for replies on ;-) Also, there might be an infobox standardization page or something to that effect where you can ask about setting the boxes so text wraps beside them for as long as the text goes until it reaches the bottom, where it can continue under. I mean, this is how images work on Wikipedia, so infoboxes ought to be the same way. It would really solve a lot of unsightly formatting problems. Let me know how you want to proceed and I will be more than happy to help get the discussion going. Also, with regard to Prince Philip and Prince Albert -- I see exactly what you are saying and even thought of it myself, but the way I see it, Albert's title of Prince Consort was granted to him solely due to the fact that his wife had been Queen for some time. Prince Philip isn't Duke of Edinburgh solely because his wife is Queen (although she certainly was expect to succeed. So, to me, although the title of Prince Consort is not officially automatic, it really isn't different from the title of Queen or Empress. I hope that made sense, I know what I'm thinking in my head but sometimes the words sound otherwise :-) Charles 04:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal WikiProject and template standardization
Hi Caponer, I would your input on two discussions I have initiated at WikiProject Biography/Royalty, one on template standardization and one on name of the WikiProject and redirects to it. Thanks in advance! Charles 04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ancestry template
I have responded at Requested templates. –Pomte 13:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Template:Ancestors of Victoria of the United Kingdom
I don't think we should set a precedent of filling the template space with ancestry tables. Perhaps we should discuss making ancestry a subpage of each article and then linking it from there, or at least trying to fix the problems with the other collapsible template. Charles 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe such issues require community discussion and consensus as well. Charles 16:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My first desire or opinion would be to solve the problem of the horizontal width of the initial collapsible template. If that cannot be done, my second thought would be to created pages such as Albert, Prince Consort/Ancestry and link them in the article as . I am not, however, a fan of creating any separate pages that serve only one article. I think it becomes unwieldly after a while and less accessible to editing. Therefore I think we should regroup and find the appropriate place to post about having headers and footers created to make a page element collapsible, while not interfering with the vertical templates on the side. Charles 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, I wouldn't say you get carried away. Your enthusiasm is wonderful and is appreciated by many. Charles 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Was there a discussion where these new templates were created? If so, a related discussion could be initiated to fix and simplify the templates that would keep everything on the same page. Charles 16:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek Revival category name change
Hi Caponer. I am curious to know if your category change name is based upon an established wiki style. I note several architectural categories with the word "architecture" not "style." Thanks. CApitol3 (talk)

Greetings Caponer
Dear Caponer, how are you? Could you help me with a huge favor that would really mean a lot to me? I am wondering if somebody would be so kind to help me translate a short-stub version of 2 or 3 sentences of this article for the Kernerwek wikipedia? Thank you very much for any advice or help you could offer :) Ameliefanne Gascon (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Washington (1718-1752)
Another editor has added the  template to the article Lawrence Washington (1718-1752), 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) 18:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong.  Jd 027  chat 18:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong
An editor has nominated Elizabeth Rockefeller Strong, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of John Washington
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on John Washington, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because John Washington seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting John Washington, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

John Washington
Another editor has added the  template to the article John Washington, 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) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of John Washington
I have nominated John Washington, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/John Washington. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. --Michael WhiteT·C 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hello. I've noticed that you mark almost all of your edits as minor. Marking a major change as a minor one is considered rude. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Adding a category to an article is not a minor edit. Please check your editing preferences to see if "Mark all edits minor by default' is checked. I think you should uncheck it, or be more careful. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-1850 Ownership of Fort Hill
I noticed that you have recently edited the articles on Fort Hill (Clemson), Thomas Green Clemson, and the article I created on Floride Calhoun, and I was wondering if you could assist me in resolving a problem. These three articles cotain conflicting information regarding the ownership of Fort Hill following John C. Calhoun's death in 1850, and I am having trouble determining which information is most accurate. I have tried contacting two other users involved in editing all three articles, User:Bubbazen and User:KudzuVine for assistance, but they have not responded to my messages. I have also tried posting a note at the Village Pump explaining the situation, but still have not gotten a response back. For more details regarding the situation, see Talk:Fort Hill (Clemson). --TommyBoy (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I recieved your reply to my earlier message, and I thank you for trying to help fix that problem. --TommyBoy (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:KudzuVine has recently edited all three articles, clarifying ownership of Fort Hill following John Calhoun's death. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles revisited
Hello, since you commented in Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles, I thought you might like to know that it is again up for discussion at Articles for deletion/List of monarchs in the British Isles (2nd nomination). Regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:BloomeryIronFurnaceWV127.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:BloomeryIronFurnaceWV127.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 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Kelly hi! 05:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Christianity
Hello !

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Frye's Inn
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Frye's Inn, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Michael Greiner 20:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spring Gap Church
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Spring Gap Church, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Michael Greiner 20:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)