| Revision as of 19:54, 22 February 2010 editKaranacs (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users27,644 edits →Arbitration notice: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:35, 23 February 2010 edit undoDavidShaw (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users725 edits →Archbishops palaces: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. ] (]) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. ] (]) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == Archbishops palaces == | |||
| Thanks for your contribution to my new section on palaces on the ] page. | |||
| I agree completely with your modification of the heading. | |||
| ] (]) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:35, 23 February 2010
Arbitration notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Archbishops palaces
Thanks for your contribution to my new section on palaces on the Archbishop of Canterbury page. I agree completely with your modification of the heading. Vidoue (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)