User talk:Philadelphia 2009

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

Why didn't you rename the page using the actual "move" function (as is preferred), instead of a cut-and-paste job? AnonMoos (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake Philadelphia 2009 (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Contraction of the eurozone

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Contraction of the eurozone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. andy (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Father Kit Cunningham

Sorry, I may have been a bit hasty on my deletion of the page and have raised it at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#Father Kit Cunningham for others to comment. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cunningham

Hi, please take care and edit cautiously, we will likely have a lot more details after this BBC show. Please do not mark your edits as minor - Wikipedia:Minor_edit is a single spelling correction or similar and plase add an edit summary to simply reflect what your edit is, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Longest serving leaders

Don't delete Ghadaffi just yet. No one knows for sure where he is, and he may hold out for a day or two. Please wait for a consensus. Czolgolz (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you said in your post, it's only 'rumored.' Until you can provide a reputable source that says Ghaddafi is out of power, you should leave the list. Don't worry, something tells me you wont' ahve long to wait. Czolgolz (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Do not change sourced information without also changing the source - perhaps what you edited is true, but that is not what the sourcing says. Cerejota (talk) 12:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something to make your life easier!

Hi there Philadelphia 2009! I've just come across one of your articles, and noticed that you had to create titles for your url links manually, or were using bare urls as references.

You might want to consider using this tool - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or or Special:MyPage/vector.js, then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page! It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well. Happy editing! Sp33dyphil © • © 02:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Epistle vs. letter

You moved Epistle to the Hebrews to letter. That should have been discussed before, see for example "Requested move" on Talk:Robert Schumann Hochschule. It's an old term, but a standard term, the books of the Bible are still called that way. Make Letter to ... a redirect if you need it, but all my links will go to Epistle, because that was the term in Bach's time - more than 200 cantatas linking (at some time in the future). Please consider reverting your move, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Firstly, it should not be done without consensus. Secondly, "epistle" is the term generally used in secondary literature. Please revert these moves, or it will make a lot of work for someone else. St Anselm (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Chronology_of_diplomatic_recognitions_and_relations_of_South_Sudan

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]