Loading AI tools
Please answer any messages I have left for you here --Stroika 08:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
GREETINGS
I would like to see the article gone, but I'm not confident that we'll get enough votes on afd. The Papal conclave, 2005 article delves on the "process" and not the background (i.e., speculation over the conclave). This means that this article could easily be merged with that one (and reduced to the size of the single section). I think I'll give it a try.--Jiang 08:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
He says that Lutherists war brother with Catoholic. Swedenman 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Since you have taken an interest in date links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application. bobblewik 20:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! I like to add info to the image pages when I can. I think in this case since we're not 100% confident I will not add an ID to the image. Cheers Cam 14:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like the archbishop in the Deus Caritas Est photo is Leonardo Sandri! ClaudeMuncey found this caption and I found a couple more: --Cam 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello Stroika!
There is something of a loose policy about pictures: if possible, they should be placed on the right-hand side of the page. I believe the reasoning behind this is that it is easier to read text with a consistent left margin and an uneven right margin than vice versa. That's why I moved the picture at Dies Irae. HTH! --bdesham ★ 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi again. How about the following formulation: "Some Catholics - Traditionalists in particular - have seen in Bugnini's alleged Masonic connections an explanation for what they regard as the excessively liberal or Modernistic course of the liturgical reform. Bugnini, however, was certainly not the only member of Consilium (or the only Catholic liturgist) with liberal ideas." (Addition: I've also just amended the introductory paragraph - a reference to the Masonic issue there seems appropriate. What do you think?)
My recollection of Pope Paul's New Mass is that the information is less detailed / specific than the info in the article, though I can't remember exactly what the old boy says. --Ancus 11:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your kind words and advice. I'm just going to make one further amendment - to change the introduction so that it presents the presentation of the dossier to Paul VI as a report rather than a fact. Does this seem reasonable? --Ancus 13:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The chances of it getting deleted are probably slim to none once the "all schools are notable" people show up. I don't see why people cite WP:SCHOOL when it's a rejected policy. --Coredesat 09:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's puzzling to me why such a strident efforts against schools in general having articles on Wikipedia? To me it makes sense to have all but the most teenie tiny schools listed. Schools are centers for education and in that light it make sense to me to have articles about them in this new center for education, Wikipedia. Netscott 17:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find your tendency to comment on every "keep" vote a bit amusing if not a bit child like. I've looked at your list and I've not heard of any outside of the ones from California. I suspect they are better known particularly in their regions where they are located rather than worldwide but I must confess to not being much of an authority on the notability of schools outside of the regions I'm familiar with (the UK not being one of them). If you are arguing against Cardinal Newman High School with your subpage then you've relied upon a false analogy argument with the inclusion of Eton and Winchester as they are not the equivalent of high schools. While I admit that Eton and Winchester are likely known in the world outside of the UK I would say it's highly doubtful that Benenden School has equivalent notoriety particularly outside of the UK. Netscott 19:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Google seems to be saying no 'e'. It's best that a consensus determines the answers to such questions because the notion of notability tends to be a bit subjective once we get a few rungs down from Oxford or Cambridge (or Berkeley for that matter). Netscott 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- A few rungs down was meant to refer to eduational levels (ie: University, College, Junior College, high school, elementary, kindergarten) but I see that I too wasn't clear in my wording. And I've perished the thought in my consensus comment already. :-) Netscott 20:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Google seems to be saying no 'e'. It's best that a consensus determines the answers to such questions because the notion of notability tends to be a bit subjective once we get a few rungs down from Oxford or Cambridge (or Berkeley for that matter). Netscott 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- I find your tendency to comment on every "keep" vote a bit amusing if not a bit child like. I've looked at your list and I've not heard of any outside of the ones from California. I suspect they are better known particularly in their regions where they are located rather than worldwide but I must confess to not being much of an authority on the notability of schools outside of the regions I'm familiar with (the UK not being one of them). If you are arguing against Cardinal Newman High School with your subpage then you've relied upon a false analogy argument with the inclusion of Eton and Winchester as they are not the equivalent of high schools. While I admit that Eton and Winchester are likely known in the world outside of the UK I would say it's highly doubtful that Benenden School has equivalent notoriety particularly outside of the UK. Netscott 19:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hello, Stroika. For the record, I'd like to say that I agree with almost all of your assertions on the AFD, and my only issue was the manner in which you questioned each vote of keep as it came up, instead of focusing on one or two of the more questionable rationales for keep. Though I may have on the surface appeared to be criticizing your argument, that is entirely not the case. I find myself questioning the notability of any schools that do not have a strong claim to notability every time I come to AFDs like this. By any means, I just felt like letting you know that you've got my support, even if there appears to be an association of editors seeking to see how many non-notable schools they can cram in. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Stroika! Yeah, I agree with what I think you're implying... but the rule also applies to High Schools for the same reason: hundreds (sometimes it feels like millions) of editors have, over the years, decided that High Schools are, without exception, notable. And they are well organised, too. On the plus side, there was once a belief that all bible verses were individually notable. Slowly but surely Wikipedia accrued an article on each one: John 1:1, John 1:2, John 1:3 etc etc. And then opinions changed and the articles were largely vapourised. So perhaps one day this will happen with High Schools... although the line was easier to draw with biblical verses - I'm not certain I could draw the line on what makes High Schools notable or not. ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
This was very classy and you did not have to respond on my talk. It's fine and I may have overreacted. Please accept my apologies. I hope everything else goes right for you. Yanksox 12:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I closed it because five days passed. If a nomination is withdrawn, and AfD should not be closed unless there are either no delete opinions left or they are so marginal as to not cause doubt about the AfD's outcome. An admin is not needed to close such AfD's. Use {{subst:afd top}} '''Withdrawn''' ~~~~ at the top and {{subst:afd bottom}} at he bottom of the AfD page, and remove the tag, and add {{subst:oldafdfull|date=Whatever the Nomination date}} to the article talk page. Cheers. - CrazyRussian talk/email 08:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Stroika, just wanted to drop you a note and tell you that I enjoyed our debate and in particular your usage of language. It a pleasure to read the arguments of others in a debate when the language they utilize has some semblance to prose. Cheers. Netscott 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Dear irate Stroika, Loosely speaking you are right. However, the word Liturgy is used by for instance the Orthodox to mean the Mass. No one was confused by my usage. I would reserve my ire for the blatant POV articles on a whole host of entries, not least those on mdoern political figures and controversies. In the Roman rite, weddings are normally conducted in the context of the Mass. The same is true of funerals. confirmations, ordinations etc. The Tridentine Breviary was not said by a congregation. Baptisms were, it is true, conducted separately, but my point about the use of the word Liturgy remains. However, to avoid repetition I have made a small amendment to your correction. Roger Arguile. St. Thomas More 2006
Oh and isn't it 'etc.'? Sorry to be picky. RA
Dear Stroika—you may be interested in putting your name to, or at least commenting on this new push to get the developers to create a parallel syntax that separates autoformatting and linking functions. IMV, it would go a long way towards fixing the untidy blueing of trivial chronological items, and would probably calm the nastiness between the anti- and pro-linking factions in the project. The proposal is to retain the existing function, to reduce the risk of objection from pro-linkers. Tony 14:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
My first instinct when I see something like that is just to revert to the last version that worked. Usually the problem has come up recently and there haven't been other useful edits in the meantime. And good on you for keeping morale up at the help desk. =) — coelacan — 08:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi im new, i would like to say that i check one of your image posts Memling's Day of Judgement, 1467-1471. And i think it was intelligent, im just a kid and i just wanted to say thanks for the picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenage schola (talk • contribs) 16:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I should have done it myself, I just wanted to state my intentions because there was a little bit of friction from one editor in the edit history on the Queens college page. Thanks for taking care of it.
BTW, what is a GBW page? Hewinsj (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
hello stroika, i am sphere, i wish to learn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.135.149 (talk • contribs) 23:09, May 4, 2009
File:MemlingJudgmentCentre.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:MemlingJudgmentCentre.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: [[File:MemlingJudgmentCentre.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This type of rhetoric is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. You've been here sine 2005, so I'm at a loss for words. I assume you are familiar with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? In case you aren't, I'm going to give you a formal warning message below. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.
There. Now that's out of the way, you are formally invited to discuss your proposed edits at Talk:Elaine Pagels#Falsification of evidence. Viriditas (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Elaine Pagels. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
why you take the name stroika? what it means? maybe write an article about it ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.145.251.190 (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Are you a Stroika? There are few of us here in the states... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.212.38.236 (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The article Cold Cuts (Nicholas Greenwood album) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Tagged for notability since March 2009
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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. – Fayenatic London 13:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
NAP BOULE MAMA ZIZI ZOZO POSE PATNAIS POSAY PATKNEES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.91.233.168 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:MemlingJudgementRight.jpg has been proposed for deletion 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 {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} 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) 01:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slughorn 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.
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
