User talk:Ambrosius007

DYK

On February 22, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dutch Catechism, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done Ambrosius. This article was kindly nominated by PFHLai. Do feel free to self nom in future.Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

Your recent contributions about Pius XII have been outstanding. I hope you stick around and keep contributing. Let me know if you need help with anything. Savidan 23:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Savidan, I really appreciate this from you. You have done so much. Presently, I am working on a tightening of the theology, and on additional "main articles" on the persecution of the Church, Church reforms, the pontificate during the late years, and, possibly, his use of communication tools (radio, TV, movies formal, informal settings etc.) I also began filling in blanks on the encyclicals and apostolic constitutions. I hope to have all of them in blue by Pentecost and expand later, only after all his saints came marching in. -:))

Please add or subtract as you see fit. Your changes of the text were all improvements. I am a little concerned about the overall lenght of the article, and while there is still much nonsense (his doctor, nose falling off, ONE newspaper report, which is admittedly mistaken), I am hesitating to erase at this time. What do you think?

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Regarding the Rosary Apostolc Letter link, please feel free to leave or delete it as you wish. It does not distract anyone and it is a nice apostolic letter. Either way is fine with me. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Pope Pius XII Church policies after World War II, was selected for DYK!

On March 10, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pope Pius XII Church policies after World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKs

Please do not hesitate to list your articles at T:TDYK, they are truly of high quality and we should expose them more! I considered doing so for your newest Pope Pius XII and Poland, but I've decided it needs some further improvement - see my recent edit and comments on talk. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pope Pius XII and Poland

I would be happy to contribute with my knowledge of Polish history, but my knowledge of the Church-Polish relations is limited, and that of Pope Pious very much so. So I would very much like to tempt you to work more on the Pope Pius XIII and Poland article - if you work on the Pius angle I will try to help more with the Poland angle :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you have noted, I have left my comments on talk of that article. I will add it to my watchlist, and I will try to reply as soon as I see your replies. I will try to find and provide sources if needed for my claims, if you cannot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to work with you. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiCookie

Queen of Heaven

Hello- I see you do some patrolling of Queen of Heaven and thought you might be interested in a recent change there. I don't have a lot of stake in the article, but I noticed that on May 8, an anonymous editor had moved all or most of the historical info on the term around so that the Christian use is discussed first. I have the impression that the material had been chronological (old to new) before that. I haven't had time to read the versions, and this could well be an improvement, but I sensed some POV in a May 9 post on the article's talk page by a user called Xandar regarding the edit. Hence this FYI. -Eric ^talk 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is yours

Hi, someone put this on my page, but since I took 90% of the music ideas from you, it is yours. Cheers History2007 (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Marian music

		The Christianity Barnstar
		As a newpage patroller, Brewcrewer rarely sees any great new articles. So when he happens across one, like Roman Catholic Marian music, he can't help but plaster its creator's talkpage with the appropiate barnstar. brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Marian music

		The Christianity Barnstar
		As a newpage patroller, Brewcrewer rarely sees any great new articles. So when he happens across one, like Roman Catholic Marian music, he can't help but plaster its creator's talkpage with the appropiate barnstar. brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This barnstar was given to you at History2007's request. Blame it on him/her. :-) --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I enjoyed the article and the music :-)--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Luther's views of Mary

Hi, thanks for your kind comments. As you might have seen I came into the Luther on Mary article at the invitation of Flex. I don't agree with those on this WP who want to merge everything and eliminate everything that they do not consider newsworthy or earthshattering. I am the type of scholar, who doesn't want to dumb things down or elimate things that are factual and sourced. I take it that you have read Pelikan's Mary through the Ages, which would be a good source. I have the Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VIII The One Mediator. Gritsch has a good foundational essay that traces the Lutheran views of the Mother of God from Luther on. There is an excellent quotation in Grisar 6 volume biography of Luther that really extolls the Immaculate Conception. Luther as you might have guessed is not a systematic theologian, you can find things he says in one place that seem to contradict what he says in another place. What is very interesting is that a really strict conservative Lutheran theologian of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, named Franz Pieper, admitted that Lutherans must be permitted to hold to the perpetual viginity of the Mother of God, probably because Martin held it to the day of his death. Cheers and salutations--Drboisclair (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I commented at User_talk:Drboisclair#Martin_Luther.27s_views_on_Mary. --Flex (talk/contribs) 17:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have heard of Jacob Boehme; he is quite a famous Lutheran of the 17th Century. He lived in what we Lutherans call our "Age of Orthodoxy." He sounds visionary like Johann Arndt. I am glad you take an interest in the catholicity of other Christians.--Drboisclair (talk) 01:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pius XII 1942 consecration of the world

Ave! I believe it was you who have posted the English text of Ven. Pius XII's 1942 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady in the article. Do you maybe have, or know where I can find, the original text - might be Portuguese? - because I want to translate it into Russian and would like to work with the original. Thanks. Hithlin (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking. The Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the world (with descriptive mentioning of Russia) took place on October 31, 1942. It was within the Radiomessage to the people of Portugal (in Portugese) on that day, My article uses a very good English translation The original text is in; Discorsi E Radiomessaggi Di Sua Santita Pio XII, Vol IV, Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana , 1943, p.253. This consecration was repeated solemnly in Saint Peter Basilica on December 8, 1942, the text of which I do not have. You would find it in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, (AAS) 1942

The second consecration was made in the context of an Apostolic letter to the people of Russia, Sacro Vergente. Here are text in Latin and Italian:

PIUS PP. XII, Epist. apost. Sacro vergente anno de universae Russorum gentis Immaculato Mariae Cordi consecratione, [Ad universos Russiae populos], 7 iulii 1952: AAS 44(1952), pp. 505-511.

www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/apost_letters/documents/hf_p-xii_apl_19520707_sacro-vergente-anno_it.html

I am absulutely sure, that a Russian translation does exist somewhere, since Sacro Vergente was written to the Russian people, question is WHERE? I have some ideas and will look into it. don't even look to the slow moving Vatican web-site for this. Remember what the Pope said, when asked how many people work in the Vatican? Half of them. -:) Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After I've asked, a friend sent me Portuguese and Italian texts (the first from the radio message and the other from the official ceremony of Dec. 8). I think there are some differences between them and the English translation (for ex., there is no word 'schism', but rather 'Aos povos pelo erro ou pela discórdia separados,' and there may be some other, too). Sacro Vergente Anno exists in a Russian translation - for example, here. Hithlin (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, I'll add it to the page. The problem with the differences is notoric in Vatican documents. It is, for example, not unusual, to find different dates for the ame document in Discorsi E Radiomessaggi Di Sua Santita Pio XII. L'Osservatore Romano, and, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, (AAS). The same applies to translations. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul VI

Thanks -- glad to see we are on the same sheet of music here, and thanks for your contributions as well. In fact, it was indeed the template on social teachings that motivated the restructuring. I realized that it didn't have a proper home in the article, so I added that encyclical as a subsection, only to discover for myself that there were a number of other encyclicals, which I ended up providing highlights of as well. I think the page has been dramatically improved from what it was about a year ago.

Mass of Paul VI

Thanks again. Very nice work enhancing Paul VI -- it's much more on a par with Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI (the two popes reigning after the invention of Wikipedia). One of the things I thought was lacking with the earlier versions was the scant mention of the revised liturgy, which is one of the most notable aspects of his pontificate. LotR (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC Persecutions & Marian Movements

The RC Persecutions series you did is just "fantastic". And I reallly liked the NavBar with the photos. The articles are generally very educational. It seems like a forgotten topic, and should be made more public. And the page for Ignatius Kung Pin-Mei should probably get that template (as well as Dominic Tang). I came across him when I was editing She Shan Cathedral but could not find a good image of She Shan. Anyway, that series is just fantastic. And the Chinese RCs are still getting persecuted just now. But in the end Kung outlived most of his captors, and was the oldest living cardinal!

India etc.

First comments: I did not see anything on India, or elsewhere where things are really bad and Catholic priests are getting killed routinely, e.g., if you try [1] These come up:

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

So I think India, and mideast etc. deserve a section - perhaps a large one. There is more persecution there than in Russia. Thanks History2007 (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive article!

Its always nice to see such an extensive article such as Catholic Ecumenical Councils being created when checking the new pages :). While only having skimmed over the contents, it looks very well written and providing sufficient in depth coverage. My compliments on a fine article!

Apart from that, i would like to make a suggestion based upon the references section. As this section is kind of long, might it be an idea to close the individual references with </ref> tags, and then generating the references section with a {{reflist|2}} to generate two seperate coloms to create a bit more overview? I would be happy to do this for you, but since im not involved into editing it, i wanted to consult you about this idea before making such a change.

Kind regards, Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget

Hi, another gadget: [9] Cheers History2007 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pius IX

The Pius IX page looks very good now. And these pope pages get a lot of access, well over 300 views per day. I wonder how that can be converted to more Marian/Mariological views. For all the Mariology pages together get less access per day than just one pope. Cheers History2007 (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi

Hi & welcome back. I have not done a lot on Wikipedia in November except reverting vandals. I did Roman Catholic prayers to Jesus and then got busy - if you know other prayers please add them. I am way up in the mountains now, but figured out web access. It is refreshing to be away from Bev Hills type people, have fresh clean water and air. And I am watching the markets dance to MBA-talk (spelt n-o-n-s-e-n-s-e) from up here. I guess they have eventually figured out that there is a recession... geniuses... Anyway, there was a debate on Queen of Heaven and I had to step in to avoid it getting merged with many other things. But that page does need your attention. As for funerals, there is only one way to stop them, as the line in the Wall Street movie said: get Ben Bernanke to open a funeral parlor, then people will stop dying... Cheers History2007 (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Pius XII and Russia

As you appear to be the major author of the designated article, would you please explain (just to me, if you do not mind) what the letters AAS on the "Sources" section there refer to.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also: is there any way of accessing all those encyclicals online?Muscovite99 (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you apparently know the subject quite well: did Pius XII condemn communism in general, or did he also condemn specifically Soviet Communism, or still more specifically the Soviet regime? Also what does the term "condemn" ("rejected") in the context mean? Excommunication? According to my Russian-language sources (in fact, Soviet), in 1949 he excommunicated all those adhering to communism and supporting them.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've now had a look at the english text of Orientales Omnes Ecclesias ([10]) and failed to find any mention of communism in there.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being late in coming back to Wikipedia:

AAS stands for Acta Apostolicae Sedis, which is the official organ of the Vatican containing all official papal documents. some but not all encyclicas are available online at the Vatican Website in the papal archieve under Pius XII. for ex. Google Mystici Corporis or go to Wikipedia Mystici corporis and you will find the link.

RE Communism: The Vatican as in the case against Nazism, condemmed the hostile actions of communist but usually not individuals. Exceptions were individuals guilty of acts agaisnt the life and liberty of Chruch representatives who in turn were excommunicated. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind explanation. But yet, did the condemnation in this case mean excommunication. I have come across the assertions that, for instance, Fidel Castro was excommunicated. Hence, arguably, his recent interest in Orthodox Christianity.Muscovite99 (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2008

History2007 (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pope Pius XII: Illness and death

Just fyi, another editor has nominated this article for deletion. Savidan 21:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Virginipacelli.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Virginipacelli.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright 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 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 uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris 06:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:PiusXvatgarden.jpg

File:PiusXvatgarden.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:PiusXvatgarden.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:PiusXvatgarden.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PiusXAug201914.jpg is now available as Commons:File:PiusXAug201914.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Tardpio12.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Tardpio12.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org, 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 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Masur (talk) 11:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Mariology

Are you interested to work with me on some Mariology articles? I am especially interested in Marian art.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Pacelli12.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pacelli12.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org, 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 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 permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image 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 uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Martin H. (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pacelli12.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons

An image or media file you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or altered there, File:Pacelli12.jpg, has been listed at Commons Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the deletion discussion if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. You may have to search for the title of the file to find its entry. File:Pacelli12.jpg Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC) --Martin H. (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on his behalf. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict XV

Hi. I saw that you make many edits in article about Benedict XV. Do you maybe see in some publication pic of Benedict XV peace proposal from august 1st 1917. It would be really great to include such pic in article. --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 07:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Montinimother.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Montinimother.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

Possibly unfree File:ARösch.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ARösch.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some simple help maybe needed on the new papabili list

If you have the time and the possibility the new List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave WP article could need some help. You could start by taking a look at the talk page. Thanks Pgarret (talk) 08:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Merge discussion for Cardinals created by Pope Pius XII in 1946

An article that you have been involved in editing, Cardinals created by Pope Pius XII in 1946 , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concordat of 1925

This article, which I believe is based on your work, is close to GA, and thus I decided to nominate it. But could you help with Concordat_of_1925#References: what's "Concordata 3" and similar? Pages of "Joanne M Restrepo Restrepo SJ, Concordata Regnante Sancissimo Domino Pio XI Inita, Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana, Romae, 1932."? If so, this particular cite does not have a page number... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:59, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism#Unacknowledged internal copying and problems with citations -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD on White Terror

Hello. A few years ago you commented on the talk page for White Terror. I've posted it for AfD. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror. – S. Rich (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete references

Several years ago, you inserted references to ‘Schmidt’ and to ‘Simmel’ in Pope Paul VI. Can you inform at least year and, ideally, title too? Thanks in advance.

— 189.61.0.190 (talk) 02:12, 4 January 2014 (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) 13:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pope Pius XII encyclicals has been nominated for discussion

Category:Pope Pius XII encyclicals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Pionono1.jpg

The file File:Pionono1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pionono.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pionono.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia: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. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Opusjustitiaepax.jpg

The file File:Opusjustitiaepax.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stella Matutina College of Education

The article Stella Matutina College of Education has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   ==Speedy deletion nomination of Poloniae Annalibus==

A tag has been placed on Poloniae Annalibus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

not the name nor a surname of the subject

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Veverve (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Bene15cardinal.jpg

The file File:Bene15cardinal.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Benedikt XV. als KardinalJS.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 13:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Testament of Pope Pius XII for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Testament of Pope Pius XII is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Testament of Pope Pius XII until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Veverve (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Papal testaments has been nominated for deletion

Category:Papal testaments has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:PaulPeterssquare.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:PaulPeterssquare.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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org, 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 permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

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. Here is a list of your uploads. 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.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vatican and Eastern Europe (1846–1958) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Super Ψ Dro 18:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pope Pius XII: illness and death" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Pope Pius XII: illness and death has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 3 § Pope Pius XII: illness and death until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]