User talk:Esoglou: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:49, 11 July 2012 editEsoglou (talk \| contribs)31,527 edits →Resurrection of the dead: r← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:56, 16 December 2022 edit undoSteel1943 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors197,157 edits Notification: listing of Breakaway Catholic Churches at WP:Redirects for discussion.Tag: Twinkle
Line 1:		Line 1:
			\ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	== Agape feast and redlinks ==

			== File:Coat of arms of the Holy See (present usage).png listed for discussion ==
	Esoglou, there is nothing wrong with a redlink, unless it's a typo. Links to disambiguation pages, however, must always be fixed. So, either write an article, create a relevant redirect at the redlink (to a closely related article), or leave the redlink. Redlinks are fine. ] ] 02:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
			] A file that you uploaded or altered, ], has been listed at ]. Please see the ] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Fdw --> ] <sup>]</sup> 12:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
	:On this seemingly remediable redlink we disagree, but I will not again blue something on which you put so much store and I don't. ] (]) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
			=====
	::Unless there's an article to send it to, either leave it red or not have a link at all (you know, no link at all might be the right solution, actually). Just don't link to disambiguation pages. Also, redlines are a significant source of new articles, so it's good to have them in general (tho I can't say in this specific case) ] ] 07:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
			The letters of John tells you who runs things. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Discussion on this specific case does not attract me. ] (]) 07:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
			- in this world. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== ] ==		== ]: Voting now open! ==

			{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Esoglou. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	In , you completely blanked an article, with the edit summary ''Roman Catholic only since 20th century''. Did you simply intend to remove or modify a category here? ] (]) 02:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	:A bad inadvertent mistake by me. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. ] (]) 06:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	==Order vs. Institute==
	I note that you have changed the category for several entries about religious groups from that of Order to Institute. I have no objection, given that it is the current canonical title. There are now two parallel categories, however, for them. Have you considered merging them or transfering the entries from one to another? Having both seems confusing. ] (]) 16:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
	:What do you suggest? All ]s are ]s but, as you know, not all religious institutes are religious orders. It is certainly wrong to call the institutes that were founded as ] orders. I have therefore started to remove from the heading "orders" the institutes that are not orders. It would seem logical to use the more inclusive term ("religious institute") for all, even for the orders, and someone could propose - would you propose? - that the heading "Roman Catholic religious orders" be changed to "Roman Catholic religious institutes". Those listed at present under the heading "Roman Catholic religious orders founded in ..." include a few associations that are not religious institutes, such as ]. These should be weeded out, but I have been leaving them partly untouched. There is another category that, as it stands, has a title so all-encompassing that it would include any Catholic association whatsoever, religious or lay: ]. This heading would include not only religious institutes and other ] but also orders of chivalry and all sorts of societies, even political ones, involving Catholics. That category perhaps requires attention even more.
	:I shall make no further changes in this field at least for several days, to allow us both more time to reflect on the question. ] (]) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	== Audio Tutorial ==
			\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/37&oldid=750629983 -->

			== ]: Voting now open! ==
	Esoglou

			{{Ivmbox\|Hello, Esoglou. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
	Could you please let me know what is wrong with the link I posted? I thought it would be very helpful to people? Why would you mark it spam?

			The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
	Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:In my opinion the addition of that link served not to provide information on the subject of the articles but only to advertise the link, in line with ] and ]. (The insertion in ] was doubly inappropriate, since, as the article itself states, "Latin Mass" does not necessarily mean "Tridentine Mass".) If you disagree, I suggest that you raise the question on the Talk pages of the articles, so that we can see what others think. ] (]) 06:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
	: I am new to writing on Misplaced Pages. I think the link helpful to people who are interested in both. Could you reccomend a place for the link? Thank you.] (]) 09:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
	::I really should have given you this advice unasked. So I apologize. The place for such links is in the Media subsection of the External links section towards the end of the Tridentine Mass article, where there are several such links. I don't think it appropriate to insert it anywhere in the Latin Mass article. ] (]) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
	:thank you. I agree with you. If you want to place the link in the media section that would be great. Do you want some photos off the website? I would be happy to contribute them. --] (]) 13:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
	::I would much prefer that you yourself chose where to put it, high up or lower down among the items already there. ] (]) 20:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
	== St Patrick's Missionary Society ==
			\|Scale of justice 2.svg\|imagesize=40px}}
			<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/37&oldid=750629983 -->
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	Hello Esoglou
			<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	I have just reversed an edit on the page <St Patrick's Missionary Society> which you had made. I had tried to find out how to contact you first but was unsuccessful. Only later found out how to contact you through online help.

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	You refer to Fr Kevin Reynolds. Fr Kevin is a member of the Mill Hill Missionaries. He is not a member of St Patrick's Missionary Society.

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
	I am sorry for changing the article before speaking to you. I am new to this and could not find any way, from your contributions page, to initiate a conversation with you.

			<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
	Tim Redmond
	St Patrick's Missionary Society
	] (]) 13:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
	:You did right to correct the article. The inclusion of the Alan Shatter quotation in the article on your society made me think Reynolds was a member. I am sorry to learn that Shatter was referring not only to non-member Reynolds, the accusations against whom have been proved unfounded, but also to actual members of your society. ] (]) 18:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

			== ] of ] ==
	==Matthew 5:17-48==
			]
	Hi, any comments on ]? Thanks. ] (]) 19:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	== A discussion of concern to you ==
			<blockquote>unused, low-res, no obvious use</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	You may like to know about the conversation happening at ]. Cheers! ] (]) 18:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	==Seeking your opinion==
	Hi, I have looked at ] and I think it can at best be described as "neglected". Although that has the fortunate implication that there is no contention or debate, the
	page seems to be suffering from ''pure neglect'' - images and templates thrown around at random, unsourced sections - and it is anyone's guess how correct the content may be.

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify -->
	Of course God's page gets viewed only 12,000 times a month (compared to over 600,000 for ]) but that is still a key page for WikiProject Christianity and should be in much better shape. I have started a discussion on the talk page there, and your comments will be appreciated. I have also asked Jpacobb and StAnselm to comment so if you could discuss the issues together and suggest improvements, or even better improve the page that would be great. Thanks ] (]) 14:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	:The traditional manuals of theology had a volume of a couple of hundred pages ''de Deo uno et trino'', half of it on God as one in nature, the other half on God as three in persons. This treatise was only on God considered apart from relationships outside of God. Another treatise was ''de Deo creatore'': on God in relation to creatures, including human beings, on whom he bestowed a supernatural status. A third was ''de Deo reparatore'' or ''redemptore'', mainly but by no means exclusively about Christ. A fourth section was ''de Deo sanctificatore'', concerning the application of redemption to individuals, a matter that took up several volumes: on grace and on the sacraments, collectively and individually. A fifth was ''de Deo consummatore'', on "the last things" or eschatology. I certainly do not feel up to even attempting to summarize all that in a single Misplaced Pages article. ] (]) 18:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
	::I do not think the article can/should summarize all of that. But I do feel that it deserves to be at least a little better than the neglected cobweb stricken item that it is now, given that Depp's page looks so much better... ] (]) 19:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

			<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold;">This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the ] of each individual file for details.</span> Thanks, ] (]) 01:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
	== Shortened form is what it means ==
			== "Breakaway Catholic Churches" listed at ] ==

			]
	It's simply a fact that "Praise ye Jah" is a shortened form of "Praise ye Jehovah". (Or "praise ye Yahweh".) That's not really a debatable issue, per se. (Though for some reason you always tend to think it is.) And it seems necessary to clearly indicate somewhere in the article (especially the lede) just what actually "Jah" is referring to. And it would seem incomplete to leave that out. And it's what the refs there (by the way), as well as a number of other sources in general many times indicate. No valid reason to remove that. Better to stick to what the refs say, and not push an anti-Jehovah name bias either. Praise Jah does NOT literally mean "praise God" or "praise the Lord". "Jah" is NOT a shortened form of "Lord", but of "Jehovah" (or "Yahweh") and that's simply a linguistic fact, not a conjecture or POV. And refs do support it. Regards. ] (]) 12:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
			An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at {{slink\|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16#Breakaway Catholic Churches}} until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

	ADDENDUM

	Per your comment and point, I included the "more than one view"...of "praise ye Yahweh"...for sourced balance... ] (]) 12:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
	:I have never even remotely questioned that יה is a short form of יהוה - this is in fact part of the reason why "Yahweh" is generally believed to be the original pronunciation - but I am not convinced that the Yahweh/Jehovah question needs to be mentioned in the ] article. However, if you want it in, so be it. ] (]) 14:04, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

	== Catholic Church and human reproduction ==

	Please take a look at this ] that I am working on and give me your feedback and suggestions from improvement. Thanx! --] (]) 16:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
	:Thank you for amplifying the text on the position of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. The text that you amplified was taken from . I think you would want to make the same clarification to that text.

	:The current draft consists of copy-paste extracts from other Misplaced Pages articles. I was surprised that Misplaced Pages really doesn't address this topic at all well. It's really only covered in fragments in articles such as [[
	Christian views on contraception]] and ]. There's not enough emphasis on the fact that these various teachings are part of an overall teaching for the respect of life and the sanctitity of marriage. I'm looking for suggestions on how to present the overall topic of the Church's teaching on human reproduction in the context of this overarching theme.


	:I want to say something along the lines of "The Catechism of the Catholic Church specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative." However, I think a fuller exposition is needed than that. I think the article needs text that grounds the Church's teaching by making references to the various encyclicals that have been issued on this topic such as ''Humanae Vitae''. Unfortunately, my knowledge in this area is sorely lacking. Can you help provide a framework for me to research? If you have time to actually write text, that would be much appreciated. --] (]) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
	::You have already more or less stated and documented that CCC declares that "sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes" (CCC 2351). It has a perhaps not unimportant clause, "when sought for itself". A point that should perhaps come first in your exposition is: "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose ... (i.e., when) sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved" (CCC 2352). Would be of any use to you? Or ? Or ? Or with its reference to the encyclical ''''? I am not knowledgeable enough to "provide a framework". All I can do is to look at some point or other that is brought up, as I did with the mention of the Winnipeg Declaration. I did see where you had taken that from, but I hoped that any modification of that article would be done by you and done more effectively than if done by me. I am avoiding actions that might be taken as indications of the battleground mentality that I am supposed to have. However, if you do not touch it, I may get around some time to modifying it myself. ] (]) 14:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
	==]/ Three Marys==
	Hi Esoglou. Mark 16:1 separates "Mary, mother of James and Salome" so evidently something has gone amiss in copying into this article. Can you help with a good Catholic source in the Three Marys section above Adam Clarke?
	:The supposed "Roman Catholic tradition" is perhaps baseless. ] (]) 15:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Catholic Church and women ==

	Please look at the section titled "Religious vocations" in the article on ]. Someone put a <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tag on this sentence: "In the ], a nun is a woman who has taken ]s (the male equivalent is often called a "]" or "friar", although the positions actually entail very different religious origins and constitute very different duties of the church". Could you evaluate the sentence in question and give me your opinion on whether it is (1) accurate and (2) helpful to the flow of the section? Thanx. --] (]) 06:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
	:Made some changes. ] (]) 13:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Pope Gregory I ==

	Thank you for your assistance and understanding. I will attempt to bring further information on this historical Pope Gregory I and Papal matter. Your efforts are certainly and most greatly appreciated. Thank you so much. ] (]) 12:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Warning ==

	Esoglou, your repeated insertion of original research in order to further your political positions was the primary cause of your several-month topic ban from abortion under arbitration enforcement. Your recent edit, in which you state that news organizations refer to CFC as Catholic in spite of its violations of canon law, clearly demonstrates that you learned absolutely nothing about NOR and NPOV from this sanction. How many more preventative measures must be taken to get you to stop disrupting the encyclopedia? Don't do this again. –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
	:Let us leave all bellicosity behind. ] (]) 06:05, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
	::I quite agree. Once you abandon your project to make Misplaced Pages conform to your personal beliefs, there will be no need for hard feelings. –] (] ⋅ ]) 17:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for declaring your agreement. Let us work together in mutual respect and consideration, with the common aim to make Misplaced Pages conform not to personal beliefs but to what reliable sources say. ] (]) 06:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

	* ] –] (] ⋅ ]) 21:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

	== June 2012 ==
	I have unblocked you, because I realized that I wasn't sufficiently ] to make that judgement call. I apologize for not realizing that before hitting the block button. --] 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

	== Notice ==
	]
	Per , you are topic banned from all articles and discussions about abortion for 6 months, broadly construed. If you have any questions regarding the scope of your ban, please feel free to ask me. ] (]) 02:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
	:Seems a tad melodramatic, but whatever floats your boat... ] (]) 01:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
	::Just a joke. I'm sure I am by no means the only one to smile at it. In fact, the image is the basis of many such jokes Enjoy. ] (]) 08:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
	:::She's ''smokin'' – ] <sup>(])</sup> 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

	== Mass (liturgy) ==

	Hello User:Esoglou, I hope this message finds you doing well. The article currently reads "because they lack the sacrament of orders," making it seem that this is a statement of fact, when in reality, this is the belief of the Catholic Church. My edit served to point out that this is a belief of the Catholic Church, rather than stating it as fact. The Anglican Church, for example, does consider her orders to be valid. I hope this helps. With regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
	:I hope we can immediately overcome our mutual misunderstandings. The article already spoke about what "it (the RCC) considers". Is that fact clear now? ] (]) 20:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
	::Thanks for your reply! I might add "their belief" after the word "considers". I might also consider adding a wikilink to the term ]. I hope this helps. In Christ, ]<sup>]</sup> 20:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

	== Grigori ==

	At the rate we are going... lol... we might want to consider making a new wikipage for the Grigori. What do you think?

	Thanks,
	] (]) 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
	:Sorry. It doesn't attract me. ] (]) 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
	::Yeah, maybe you're right... three pages to toggle with is too much.] (]) 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

	== A barnstar for you! ==

	{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
	\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" \| ]
	\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''The Teamwork Barnstar'''
	\|-
	\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \| Esoglou,
	I want to thank you for your watchful eye and editorial modifications to the ], ] and ] pages. Even though I may be hard and even wrong at times, your input has helped define these pages on wiki. I think the articles are looking good. Thanks, ] (]) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
	\|}
	:Thank you for your kind words, which I believe you will on second thoughts choose to withdraw. I do not think the pages in question are looking good. ] (]) 10:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
	::I will not withdraw. Our skirmishes are helping to shape the pages. I understand that we both get frustrated sometimes, only because we are looking through different lenses. I noted your being annoyed on the ]‎ page. I know I can be an ass. I also know we both have good intentions for the articles... and so when it comes down to the bottom line, we both share something strong in common. Thanks, ] (]) 12:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


	== Resurrection of the dead ==
	Hi Esoglou, would you do me a favour, would you mind posting ] on WT:CATHOLICISM, I can't get the page to load - something on it must be triggering my firewall, I get this occasionally. Thanks! ] (]) 00:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
	:I apologize for my inability to understand. I can't find ]. If I could find it, I might understand what is meant by "posting ]". I can only suppose it means posting But where? ] (]) 07:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

	::I think the page in question is ]. --] (]) 16:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
	:::The shortcut ] will already take you to ]. Let me know if there is a desire to also provide a shortcut spelled as ]. ] (]) 16:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
	::::Now that I know the page you meant (WT:CATHOLIC, not WT:CATHOLICISM), I have done the posting. I have also added a brief comment on the matter you wished to draw attention to. Sorry for not having linked up to Misplaced Pages sooner. ] (]) 18:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:56, 16 December 2022

\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.77.202 (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of the Holy See (present usage).png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Coat of arms of the Holy See (present usage).png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly 12:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

=

The letters of John tells you who runs things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.143 (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

- in this world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.249.143 (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Esoglou. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Proposed deletion of File:Arms of Castiglioni popes.jpg.png

The file File:Arms of Castiglioni popes.jpg.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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) 01:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Arms of Savelli popes.png

The file File:Arms of Savelli popes.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages 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.

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) 01:01, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

"Breakaway Catholic Churches" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Breakaway Catholic Churches and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 16 § Breakaway Catholic Churches until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)