User talk:Coquidragon

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Coquidragon! I am Ttonyb1 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

ttonyb (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beginner's mistake: 1986 Goodwill Games, automatically reverted by ClueBot.

File:Bronze medal.png, copyright status is unclear. Deleted by own request.

File:Silver medal.png, copyright status is unclear. Deleted by own request.

File:Gold medal.png, copyright status is unclear. Deleted by own request.

In the future, if you want to have something deleted that you created, you can put {{db-g7}} or {{db-self}} on the page or image description page, and it will be deleted by an admin. To see a history of your contributions, just click the "my contributions" tab at the top right of any page, and to see your deleted contributions, on that page, under "User Contributions" click on "deleted user contributions" -about the 5th option after your username. Skier Dude (Talk) 02:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Hello. You'd created redirects for various Goodwill Games and Centrobasket tournaments and then tagged them to be deleted. I didn't delete them. I think your redirects here are useful and that they can probably be expanded in time into full articles. Hope this isn't a problem! Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for them to be deleted as I thought that the Red color of an unexisting page would bring the attention to it, so that someone could create it with actual data. If you thinks the redirects are better than nothing, there were other deletes done by Athaenara for the 1971-95 Centrobasket tournaments. I was wondering why some were deleted and others not. Coquidragon (Talk) 23:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that a redlink is easier to spot. But there is a way to categorise redirects so that people can tell they should likely be articles. If you add {{r with possibilities}} after the redirect, so like #REDIRECT [[Centrobasket]] {{r with possibilities}}, it will categorise them as things that have the possibility of being an article. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think I should redo the redirects that were deleted? Coquidragon (Talk) 15:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I will undelete them. No point in you doing the work twice! Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:23, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added more than 15,000 bytes of prose to this article, for your effort I gladly present WikiProject Puerto Rico's barnstar to you. Keep up the good work and please consider a Good Article drive.

Two reversals to my changes. The changes were approved after contacting both admins.

Puerto Rico national basketball team, automatically reverted by Arbitrarily00.

Puerto Rico national basketball team, automatically reverted by 5 albert square.

The new page is Puerto Rico men's national basketball team. --Coquidragon (talk) 22:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will salvage the content. You see, I merely moved the history to the new title per the common practice, the system deletes the destination per CSD G6 when a sysop approves such a move. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this revision have all of your work? It is dated "16:03, 30 January 2010" with an edit summary stating "Broken Link." - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does. Thanks. I left a message back at your talk.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry for the mix-up. Regards, - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Brazil won, but maybe e-mailing FIBA would be better. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MESSAGE LEFT AT USER:2much: I added back the "Coast to Coast" fact to the SLB article with two ammendments: a clarification that this achievement was after the 1975 Latino Greek lettered boom; and giving credit where it was due to Phi Iota Alpha as the first to accomplish it. Is it ok with you? --Coquidragon (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. Heavily qualified. But fine. Thanks. 2much (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Another user took out the claim of being first to achieve "Coast to Coast". The current language reads "In 1992, SLB spans "coast to coast" with the establishment of SUNY-Stony Brook (Pi chapter) and California State University-Dominguez Hills (Tau Chapter)." As is, there is no need for the qualifier. This new language will also stop the "Edit war" of going back and forth. If you don´t mind, I will go ahead and take the qualifier out as I don´t see a need for it anymore. Let me know what you think.--Coquidragon (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok 2much (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have finished the review for your nomination of Ponce, Puerto Rico. While the article is comprehensive, it has some issues that need to be fixed before the article can be promoted to Good Article status. The most important issue is 2 images with pretty blatant copyright violations. The review is at Talk:Ponce, Puerto Rico/GA1. Will you be available to address these? If so I can put the review on hold while they are addressed. If not, probably best to close the review now, and re-nominate later after the issues have been addressed. Dave (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Good luck at school. Dave (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Regarding the "1921 and 1931" merger. I made the change since I also added Pi Delta Phi to the list of Defunct orgs. As I understand it, Pi Delta Phi merged with UHA and Pi Lambda Alpha in 1921. UHA is not in the list, it not being Greek. Do you want to paraphrase the footnote to account for the first merger? I left just the dates to let people go to the articles if they had curiosity on the matter. By the way, I sent you an email. Did you receive it?"

Yes I did receive your email, Thank you. As for the footnotes. You cannot paraphrase two separate events into one footnote. PDF merged into FLA, not FIA. FLA later on merged into FIA. So you need to have them as two footnotes. Not one. 2much (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also on another note. Those NIC footnotes in List of Latino Greek Lettered Organizations are not relevant. From wikipedia's rules it's not relevant whether an org is a member of NIC also. NIC and NALFO have nothing to do with each other. Furthermore NIC is for fraternities only. While NALFO is a co-ed council. This further muddles the comparision. 2much (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks for the feedback. Beginner´s mistakes. --Coquidragon (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Above the most important rule is NPOV: Neutral point of view. In practice it means not using too many adjectives, and adverbs. Present verifiable facts as plainly as possible. Any embellishment takes away from the quality of the article. 2much (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you eliminated all the organizations without wikilinks from Cultural interest fraternities and sororities. Couldn´t you just unlink them? Is this a list of organizations in wikipedia or a comprehensive list of cultural organizations? Can I add back the organizations without wikilinks just for informational purposes? --Coquidragon (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The list is supposed to be of ones that are notable, and ones without an article are inherently non-notable, as are single-chapter non-national organizations and most defunct organizations. Notability in the fraternity/sorority articles (as far as that wikiproject is concerned) is that a group has a few chapters and has been around long enough that the founders have all left school. What I'd suggest doing is creating articles for the ones I deleted with some information filled in about them. They don't have to be in-depth articles, but something that shows their notability. Hope this helps! Justinm1978 (talk) 14:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know about the other groups. Within the Latino group, the youngest (not defunct) organization is 13 years old. There is only one organization with one chapter. There are about 10 orgs with between 3 and 9 chapters, which are only in one state. There is one with 4 chapters in two states. From the wikiproject perspective, can you share some light on notability? I don´t want to create articles for orgs that I shouln´t. Thanks in advance. --Coquidragon (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I responded on my page. No sense duplicating the conversation :) Justinm1978 (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really, anything that is considered "national" (IE, formally incorporated as a business, has multiple chapters, etc.) passes for notable in my book. I'm not the judge on this matter, only a member of the jury :) I would suggest that you create articles for whichever ones you think pass the nebulous criteria for notability and see if they stick around. What will get them put up for speedy delete for spam or put through AfD is if the article is fluff about the "vision of the founders and their quest to bring about major societal change" or other stuff like that which is written with dramatic pose. Wikipedia isn't a rush flyer and articles written like one tend to get flagged for lack of notability because they're all talk with nothing concrete to back it up. Let me know if you need any other help, and good luck! :) Justinm1978 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I´ll see what I can do.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Sigma Lambda Beta - Omega Alpha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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. NYCRuss ☎ 23:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning to improve the wording, the NPV and the sourcing, adding more information as Historial Membership, Envents, etc... I can move the article into my sandbox to do it. Now, I read the notability criteria. This is a chapter of a fraternity. I was planning on creating articles for other chapters as well. Is this artcile non-notable for the information provided or for itself, as a regular chapter of the organization?--Coquidragon (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely difficult for a chapter to meet the notability requirements. So much so that every such article that has been created has been deleted, or is up for deletion. The only type of exception has ben articles for chapter houses where the house has been declared a landmark, but even then those articles are about the house, and not about the chapter. NYCRuss ☎ 10:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Then go ahead. --Coquidragon (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, we can just make it a redirect to the national page. NYCRuss ☎ 18:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don´t worry. It is not worth it.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on National American Greek Council requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 16:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message left at talk page: I am trying to create a comprehensive listing of the National Greek umbrella organizations. This NAGC is a council created by regionals and locals orgs that do not meet the criteria for joining the National more established councils, such as NIC, NPC, NPHC, NALFO, etc... I created the NAGC article (after asking the admin who previously deleted) to eliminate the redlink from the main article. I think that the listing of the member orgs should not be in the body of the main article. So, what is the next step? --Coquidragon (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What happened? I got the notification about the deletion. I put a hangon petition and added a response about its purpose and the page was deleted without anybody responding to my explanation. Can you at least userfy the page? It was not an orphan page, but part of a project about all the diferent National Greek umbrella organizations. I think it could meet the notability requirements after I had finished working on it. I had already created the navigation template with the orgs. I was working on the articles for the org members. I mean, the article received the deletion notice not one minute after I saved it.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case, I had already contacted the previous admin that had deleted the original page and he/she told me to go ahead and create the new page as long as I did not violate any copyrights. I was trying to eliminate the redlinks from the original page.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page because your reasons for placing the hangon-template did not address the reasons why speedy deletion was proposed - i.e. that the article did not say why the group should be considered important or significant in any way (and from my own Google searches, I couldn't find any such indication as well). I have restored and moved the article, including talk page, to User:Coquidragon/National American Greek Council though, so you can work on it. Before restoring it to the mainspace, you really should add reliable sources to establish why this organisation should be consider notable, otherwise it will most likely be deleted again. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring it. I also apreciate the feedback. I will do (or at least try to do) as you say.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soumyasch talk page
I have created an article for Defunct Greek Umbrella Organizations. Can I recreate the FLA page with a brief description of what it was and a list of its member organizations.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you userfy for me the old Fraternity Leadership Association? I would like to know what was in the original article so that I can improve on for notability and sourcing.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy talk page
I have a favor to ask, that is if you can and if you are willing. I don´t know how this would work. I would really apreciate if you could userfy to me the deleted Fraternity Leadership Association article so that I could improve on its notability and sourcing as well. I left a message at Soumyasch talk page, who was the admin who deleted the page, but there is a message there that says "I am no longer actively editing on Wikipedia, though out of sheer habit, still check my watchlist regularly and sporadically fix a mistake/vandalism or two." Thanks in advance either way.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. You can find it at User:Coquidragon/Fraternity Leadership Association. Regards SoWhy 17:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Coquidragon (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found your copy of the Fraternity Leadership Association page and would like to help if I can, but I'm not having much luck googling for it. Any ideas on how I can help?Naraht (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a copy of Baird's Manual? I am currently residing in Spain and have no access to it. If you do, you could see which campus FLA made it to and when did it dissolve? If not, I plan to work on it once I ge back.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baird's Manual of American College fraternities hasn't been published since 1991. (It normally went 5-10 years between editions anyway, but it has probably stopped for good). Since the FLA dates from 2002, more or less, that wouldn't be useful. (I actually own a copy of the 1991 version)Naraht (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realized that after posting the message. Still, the help is welcome as to the two questions on campuses and dates. Thanks for your feedback and for your offer to help.--Coquidragon (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campuses? FLA was an organization of National Fraternities, the only question with campuses is which schools actually changed their rules to say "NIC or FLA" in some set of rules rather than NIC.Naraht (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, besides the original six members, it seems three other organizations (don´t know which ones) could have also joined as I have found websearches that put the number of FLA members at nine (it may be a mistake, but who knows). I have also read at the time that FLA made it to several campuses as local umbrella groups, and that´s besides the constitutions of many IFC´s being ammended to include "members of NIC and FLA". Now, I haven´t look at the info for quite some time, but I plan to do it once I get back.--Coquidragon (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am coming to your rescue regarding the issue of who won the 1988 Tournament of the Americas Olympic Qualifier in Montevideo, Uruguay. The information at http://archive.fiba.com/pages/eng/fa/event/p/cid/COPSM/sid/3008/_/1988_American_Olympic_Qualifying_Tournament_for_Men/index.html is totally wrong. The information at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Tournament_of_the_Americas is indeed correct and I have the articles and videos to prove it. I have corrected the information contained in article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico_national_basketball_team to reflect this and have added a footnote to support my thesis. Misterfrisky (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to make an issue of this and will not change it, even though I would believe FIBA's page over wikipedia data. If FIBA is wrong, let them correct it. I will assume good faith in your source, even though I have no way of double checking it.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that history should be backed up by proof, so I have "parked" an image of my reference at http://www.merdist.com/SJS060188.jpg You can download and keep for your files. Anytime you need help with our National Team History, please don't hesitate to leave a message. I have many videos and newspaper clippings that I am willing to share. Misterfrisky (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a color change on the Template, please respond on the template talk page. (And if you can think on *anyone* else who might have an opinion, please invite, I *promise* not to complain about WP:CANVAS :) )Naraht (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Greektruthmovement (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I deleted your edits because they were unreferenced. You can cite internet pages, but I have read the minutes for all NALFO meetings, and there is nothing in there to support your claims on NAK, ODPhi, SLB or SLG. By the way, citing the first caution message on NPOV, you are the one writing on a competitor; I was actually surprised to see you actually commented in a HATE blog what your are trying to put in Wikipedia:http://greekstand.com/blog/2010/10/the-infamous-hate-blog/comment-page-1/#comments. The 21st and 22nd comments are yours I believe. I don't know what you expected people to hear as it is a recording of a SLB podcast, but it does show intention. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is no HATE blog and unless you can cite documents where it is stated the reason for the orgs leaving NALFO, you should refrain from doing so.--Coquidragon (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		For working together on the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizationsarticle with User:Greektruthmovement (Naraht (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

File:SLB-map.jpg The file needs rationales for both pages it's attached to. We hope (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a new image "File:SLB-map.gif" and have supplied rationale for it. Please delete "SLB-map.jpg". Thanks in advanced.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SLB-map.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 18:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coquidragon. Would you care to drop by Talk: History of the Papacy#Boticelli image and Augustine Quote? I'm looking for more opinions on this. Delta x (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had an agreement on the NALFO page please do not break it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greektruthmovement (talk • contribs) 15:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change based on the new discussion and the new reference. The proposal was in the discussion page for over a week before I made the change. I have changed it back, but I would like for you to comment on the last part of the discussion with respect to the second reference. Thanks in advanced.--Coquidragon (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Categories:Former USL Professional Division teams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 14:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder. --Muhandes (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've been traveling. I'll add it back whenever I have sources. Thanks for your patience.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question for you. I see that on the page Catholic religious order, you undid my revision. I added Priests of the Sacred Heart to the list, but you deleted it, saying it's "Not an order." However, on the Wikipedia article for Priests of the Sacred Heart, it clearly states that it is indeed an order. Why do you think it isn't an order? It's atticle clearly states "The Priests of the Sacred Heart of Jesus constitute a Roman Catholic religious order of priests." Perhaps, is there something I'm not understanding about the definition of what an order is? If I am misunderstanding this somehow, please provide some clarification. Perhaps the article Catholic religious order needs to be more clear, because from what I understand the article to say, Priests of the Sacred Heart would fit the definition. Any insight or clarification you can provide would be appreciated. Thank you. --Billertl (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing. If you read the article, it talks about Religious Orders, as classified in the Annuario Pontificio. Since the 1917 Code of Canon Law, there are no differences between religious orders and religious congregations, but there were differences before that date, and technically there are today if only in name. The main difference is the nature of the vows. A person in a religious order professes solemn vows, while a person in a religious congregation professes simple vows. Today, there is no canonical difference between the two, but there were in the past. The last religious institute founded whose members professed solemn vows is the Order of the Bethlehem Brothers in 1653. Since then, all religious institutes had their members profess simple vows. In the Annuario Pontificio, the distinction is kept and the orders are listed separate from the congregations. Today, because of the lack of canonical differences, the words religious order and religious congregation are used interchangeably by most people and that's why the Priests of the Sacred Heart are called an order in their webpage. Hope this helps.--Coquidragon (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you removed this category from Catholic Church? The only criteria for inclusion in the category is that the organization actively opposes same-sex marriage. It doesn't have to be their sole or primary function (the Mormon Church and Alliance Defense Fund, for example, are also there); the Catholic Church has given a great deal of money (probably more than most other organizations in the category) and made a great deal of effort towards banning same-sex marriage. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly stated my reason in the summary page, as well, as in a the discussion page of the category. I even asked about my taking it out, with no response from anyone for more than 2 months. If you think my reason is not valid, let´s discuss it at the discussion page for the category or for the Catholic Church. Thanks.--Coquidragon (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have either of them on my watchlist; please see also Wikipedia:Silence means nothing. However, this aside I'm not sure why you're citing the 2 months it's been gone as evidence that people agree with you; before you removed it, it had been there for four months. If you wish to change the criteria for inclusion in the category, surely it is incumbent upon you to achieve consensus, since the current inclusion criterion is active opposition to same-sex marriage and only that. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw in the "Football records in Spain" that you doubted my claim of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup (recognized as the predecessor of the later UEFA Cup by UEFA) being official (recognized by FIFA) and the Copa Eva Duarte (predecessor of the current Spanish Super Cup and founded and organized by RFEF (The Spanish Royal Football Federation) and asked for a source in either Spanish or Catalan on Wikipedia.

See this page.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Cl%C3%A1sico

Look for Palmarés (honours) and see the references and notes used.

Also see FIFA's official page concerning FC Barcelona and see that they have included the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and regard it as official. The official page of FC Barcelona also includes it.

Thank you and happy easter.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the Wikipedia from other languages are cited, they are usually the same article, not other random articles. The Spanish wikipedia for the said article had nothing alike and there was no article in the Catalan wikipedia. Besides, I'm culé and I agree with you. Still, most article involving European records in English Wikipedia have no mention of Fairs Cup in the official trophies. So editors do have a point. I added it back for it being a mayor competition often cited by FIFA, but if consensus is seek based on other well sourced English articles, I would have to give reason to those opposed to Fairs being counted as European record.--Coquidragon (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. I have seen that they often differ. The Incer-Cities Fairs Cup is an official trophy since it is recognized by FIFA. It is also recognized by UEFA as the predecessor of the current UEFA Europa League. Also FIFA include the Fairs Cup in Barca's trophy haul and FCB also have it included as an official trophy on their homepage.

I see that you have included the Copa Latina in the new table but is this trophy not unofficial? I see no tables where it is included? And this Amarru sockpuppet who wants to include regional etc. trophies - they are all unofficial. Even RM's own homepage recognize this just as the "Real Madrid records and statistics" thread here on the English Wikipedia.

But I must say you did a good job making the table and changes.

But this Amurru must be stopped. I just got a death warning from him (possibly) under a new IP (this time not hidden)

The IP address 71.139.163.192 wrote the following on my talk page without any reason:

"You a bitch

I hope you die you worthless pathetic fucking cunt."

How do I report such incidents?--Suitcivil133 (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, you should report the incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I agree. It seems the anonymous user is indeed Amarru.

As for Latin Cup, I noticed that the FIFA pages for several Central European teams included the Mitropa Cup (which was their equivalent to the Latin Cupa). As such, and since it was an European competion organized by 4 FIFA federations, I thought it could be included. As for Fairs, again, I know all that and think it should be included (I did include it, didn't I?). I just think a case could be argue both ways, which will make consensus hard to reach.--Coquidragon (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Yes you are right. The new user deleting your edits and including regional titles and writing uncorrect numbers of domestic titles for RM seems to be this Amarru as well.

Yes you might be right about that one. So we could as well include it. If I am not mistaken the Latin Cup was also the predecessor of the European Cup and organized by the football federations of France, Italy, Spain and Portugal.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also I was wondering if you could merge the total count of UEFA and FIFA titles into one in the table that display the number of trophies won by Spanish clubs. And also edit the references (just include the Copa Latina in the count)

Because without the Copa Latina it's 78-74 and now when its included it is 80-76 so it's the same difference.

I also guess that the El Clásico thread should be corrected to include the Latin Cup otherwise people will contradict the two pages.

I am still not sure if we should include the Copa Latina also because the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia versions has not done so. Also the Wikipedia pages about RM and FCB in English do not include the Copa Latina. What do you say about this matter?

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include in your table Pequeña Copa del Mundo, Copa Iberoamericana and  Copa Presidente  — Precedingunsigned comment added by Amarru (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]  

Hey kid, you need to wise up. You are vandalizing.

First, learn how wikipedia works. Messages are signed. Messages are written at the end, not in between someone else's message. You don't make changes to a wikipedia article before seeking consensus in the Discussion Page. You respond the messages left at your talk page. You don't insult other users. You back any change you make with sources. If you think something in the article is wrong, you add a tag, you don't delete, etc., etc., etc.

Second, you don't come here to my page and demand nothing. You make a request: "Please," "Can you," "Would you," etc. When you learn some manners and learn how wikipedia works, then I can work with you, but not till then.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure the LNF is in recess? According to some of the teams' sites, they are playing games in 2012. Fraigcomar schedule Bmanphilly (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I misread your previous post. You clearly know what is going on with the league. Muchas gracias por proveer una fuente buena. He estudiado español por cinco años, pues entendí su mensaje electrónico. Sin embargo soy estadounidense y no sé la liga como la sabe Ud. Bmanphilly (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at El Clásico shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sorry to say this, but you have reverted the same material 3 times in 24 hours. Please leave further reverts of this sort to someone else, otherwise you will be in violation of this policy. Fortunately there are others who appear interested in resolving this problem. Fæ (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Liga Nacional de Fútbol de Puerto Rico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luis Ortiz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 16:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop putting information that you cant prove. I have already falsified the 1990/91 pasillo- barcelona did receive it but received it much earlier from another club as they were already 10 pts ahead before the last 3 4 games. unless you prove pasillo was given by madrid then FOR LA LIGA( pasillos for other cups are not mentioned, if they are to be mentioned, then madrid, valencia etc have received numbers of pasillos, it is unwise to put that here), i will not be able to put that false information you have been putting. i seriously question your knowledge of la liga history. how much do you even know about club football eh? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.197.17 (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your personal attacks (which by itself is reason enough to block your IP), you have removed properly sourced material. If you continue, you'll be blocked from Wikipedia. For your peace of mind, in case you cannot read Spanish, I have added a second source in English, which states that in 1991 Real Madrid did the pasillo for Barcelona. Where is your source that says otherwise? Wikipedia is about sourcing, not about your opinions.--Coquidragon (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop giving me first second idiotic warnings. about your reference! you are faslifying yourself. the source you gave says madrid got the pasillo in 1991 and not barcelona. do you understand spanish? try translating it. it clearly says madrid got twice until 2008 when they got it the third time. its emminent you will be blocked for lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.71.197.17 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed two records there which has matches from 1914 in which some and/or most include unofficial friendly matches. None of the other tables and their records have unofficial matches counted in the record streaks. Just letting you know.49.244.56.136 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please protect the page for now? Some barca fanatics are creating absolute havoc there putting 100000+ goals and other false records... ridiculous vandalism.49.244.41.154 (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your change to the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup page, and read the reference you added. I agree that all teams entered in the first few editions of that competition, not just the Barcelona team, were there as representatives of their city. Some cities, like London, were represented by a team including players from many London clubs. Some cities, like Birmingham, were represented by a team from just one club: that isn't what the City of Birmingham authorities wanted, but Birmingham City F.C. were the only club willing to let their players take part.

I've also read that a player from RCD Espanyol was included in the team representing the city of Barcelona, but if there was, he never played: according to the teams listed in the Mundo Deportivo match reports, every player appearing for the Barcelona team in the 1955-58 edition of the Fairs Cup was a Barcelona player at the time he played. If you can show specific evidence for an Espanyol player being included, or point out the one I missed, then please do: I'd appreciate the clarification. But without such evidence, I think it's misleading to call it a "Barcelona XI", when all other city teams described in that format were made up of players from more than one club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point you're making. But in the first edition of the Fairs Cup, every team was entered by the city hosting the trade fair in order to represent that city: that's just how the competition worked. It wasn't something particular to the team representing the city of Barcelona. I believe the Birmingham City FC players representing the city of Birmingham also wore the arms of the city on their shirts.

Conventionally, English-language sources for the 55-58 Fairs Cup, e.g. RSSSF, refer to single-club teams by the name of the club, and to the mixed-club teams by the name "<city> XI". There's a piece on the UEFA website confirming the 55-58 Barcelona team as containing only FCB players, and also confirming that all teams in that edition were representatives of trade fair cities. So changing the name to "Barcelona XI" in the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup page without changing all the others to the "<city> XI" format would be treating that city's team inconsistently. And changing them all to "<city> XI" would be consistent, but would go against the way they're generally referred to in reliable English-language sources. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As to the La Liga clubs in Europe page, I'd probably call it FC Barcelona, but with a clear note, preferably visible at the table entry rather than buried in the references where nobody reads, and sourced to a specific English-language reference, explaining that in that edition of the competition, FCB had the honour of representing the city of Barcelona rather than themselves as a club. If the team that won the initial edition of the Fairs Cup was purely a city of Barcelona representative XI and not FCB, it probably shouldn't really appear on a page about La Liga clubs at all ;-) cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and 1955–58 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup pages, how about a compromise? change all the teams to the "<city> XI" format, but, where that city was represented by a club side, as Barcelona, Birmingham, Milan, putting something like "represented by Birmingham City F.C." in parentheses afterwards. Rough idea of possible layout below. It's factually accurate, in that all entrants in the first edition were indeed teams representing cities, but follows the sources in that it includes the club in cases where the city was represented by a club side. It's hard to tell from English newspapers of the time whether Barcelona was generally referred to as the place or the football club, because the FC/CF is never included. They always called the Milan representative team Internazionale, and in fixtures and results, tended to put Birmingham City (which is a football club) rather than Birmingham (which might be either). The Barcelona XI (represented by...) would work equally well at the La Liga clubs in Europe page.

Season	Home team	Score	Away team	Venue
1955–58 Details	(ENG) London XI	2–2	(ESP) Barcelona XI (represented by FC Barcelona)	Stamford Bridge, London
	Barcelona XI	6–0	London XI	Camp Nou, Barcelona

I can't find any reliable source for an Espanyol player being included. The UEFA piece mentioned above said the Barcelona XI won it "using players purely from FC Barcelona", and you'd think RCD Espanyol might complain if UEFA were writing their player out of history. And this, which may not be reliable in the WP sense but reads like it knows what it's talking about, says Espanyol were asked to be part of a joint squad but refused (which is exactly what happened in Birmingham, when Aston Villa were asked but refused). Please feel free to copy/move this conversation to relevant talk page(s). regards, Struway2 (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like your proposal. Don't worry about the RCD Espanyol player, since the current source doesn't mention him.--Coquidragon (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Liga clubs in Europe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oeiras and Witton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 23:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Round6 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. MicroX (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you don't waste your time, you can't ask for a third opinion unless it's one editor versus one editor. You'd have to ask either for an RfC, or for DR. However, in this case, neither is indicated as consensus seems clear. A DR request would probably be rejected on those terms. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN states that “Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source” I removed material because it was unsourced, and yet you replaced it without an inline citation to a reliable source which is in direct contradiction to WP:BURDEN. Don’t reinsert the paragraph until it’s properly sourced. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. In principle the UIC was "continental", not "regional" and UEFA made it clear in its rules for the last 3 editions who was proclaimed champion and neither Athletic nor Deportivo have complied with the requirements of UEFA at the time.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it means to be "outright winner" or, as you say, "titular champion"? Obviously, because the tournament regulation says, UEFA recognizes that team (ie one of the eleven who qualified for the UEFA Cup) as the competition's winner, therefore, can not say the same of the rest. This link is even more explicit: "In the UEFA Cup campain 2007/2008, the best performing team was the German team Hamburger SV." (and the website was powered by UEFA and the Europan Football Pool).--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 19:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you asked for some help. If you need any, let me know. 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir,

Kindly take a look at the disruptive editing of the user "2001:620:d:4ad2::323" who is removing sourced material after a consensus has been reached. Also take a look at his user history on Wikipedia where I have found him removing sourced material at will.

The "dispute" is ongoing on this Wikipedia page below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Football_records_in_Spain&action=history

Here for instance he has removed correct sourced information for no reason that I had to correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Derbi_barcelon%C3%AD&action=history

Here is his user history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323

He is a sockpuppet moreover. It obvious that he is a RM fan hellbent on disrupting data/information about FCB.

Please contact a moderator and help me spread the word.

Thanks in advance.

--Suitcivil133 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel if the character's code name or civilian name is already on there it didn't need to be used twice. For example: Batwoman is more than one character yet they are all in that one article. We don't need to direct the readers to Batwoman more than once. Same with Bruce Wayne or Catwoman He is Batman! she is Catwoman! We don't need to be redundant in a navbox and further elaborate their alter-ego. It's mainly used for easy navigation for readers. Also modern comics doesn't need to imply that they belong there. Since this is fictional (not real life) I am just trying to limit to just the well known characters. Some of those characters might need to be in Batman Family if they have their own article and have proven notability to be a standalone article. A lot you linked didn't have articles so they don't belong on a navbox where you are supposed to have a link. Some were blue linked so there could be possibilities. I just think the navbox has enough of every big deal character already on here personally. If the character is new and has gotten popular. I believe we need reliable sources and outside adaptions for the modern character to prove themselves as important for the navbox. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on this topic? Want to weight in on it here? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is named WP:ANI#Opinion needed re: canvassing issue. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 18:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to hear from you. The reason that some of the changes were removed is because of the erroneous information that was posted. For example Juan Evangelista Venegas only won one Olympic Bronze Medal, Puerto Rico's first and Luis Ortiz won only one Olympic Silver Medal, Puerto Rico's first. I had the honor of meeting him and handling his medal. You stated that you have "two additional Olympians, with their respective notes, and the updates for Anthony and Stephens". That is fine, post them in my talk page or the articles talk page with the sources and we'll make the corrections. As a good Boricua I would very much like to work on this with you. By the way I want to thank you, I updated the Olympic Medal information of Carmelo Anthony and Maggie Stephens. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know I am going to return it back to it's original stage because no one had complained about it. Thank you for your insight on the matter.Tony the Marine (talk) 04:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Christian sorority has been nominated for merging with Template:Fraternities and sororities. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:United Council of Christian Fraternities and Sororities has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:LadyLaLeche-St.Augustine.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 [email protected], 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 {{permission 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 [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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 in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You can go ahead and delete it . I will upload one of my own, taken by me, under universal public domain dedication.~~ Coquidragon (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:VirgenDivinaProvidencia-PuertoRico.webp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PRSLPlayoffs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 03:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pontifical commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Francis. 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) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed you have updated the Calendar Proper for Puerto Rico in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_calendars_of_the_Roman_Rite&diff=prev&oldid=1220801986&title=National_calendars_of_the_Roman_Rite&diffonly=1.

I’d like to kindly ask you whether you are willing to provide me a photo/scan of the referenced pages? I’d prefer the GRC (monthly) list of celebrations listed in the Roman Missal translation used in Puerto Rico, however, even the referenced pages from the Liturgy Hours would be nice, along with the front cover, title page, its verso, maybe some other pages.

For the context, I am a contributor of romcal which a library that generates calendar data for any supported general or particular calendar, along with the localised celebration names and other stuff. I want to improve it by data verification using the available sources.

If you want to share the photos with me, I can provide you more information. If you want, the photos could be shared with me privately without their publication outside of romcal core contributors.

Thanks in advance, Coquidragon! 7otto (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@7otto: How do I get them to you? Puerto Rico uses the Liturgical books from Argentina, which incorporate the Puerto Rican feasts. So, there is not an updated proper Calendar from a Missal, only from the proper to the Liturgy of the Hours. Coquidragon (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

> How do I get them to you?

You can either sent it directly to [email protected] or (if you want to share them publicly) create a GitHub Discussion in the romcal repository and attach them to it.

> Puerto Rico uses the Liturgical books from Argentina, which incorporate the Puerto Rican feasts.

Good to know. The GRC from the Missal would be useful for the Argentinian Proper too then. :)

Anything you provide us will be very useful to romcal. Thanks in advance! 7otto (talk) 07:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]