User talk:Pontificalibus

Archives

01 2008-2009 02 2010 03 2010-2011 04 2011-2019

I would have appreciated a discussion preceding your edits. Aghore (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to this, I thought it was uncontroversial. I can't see how a separate article for that short list of books is justified. What would you have discussed exactly? ----Pontificalibus 11:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kinter, Arizona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gila Mountains (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pontificalibus. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Michael Keall".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	Scammer
	I do not appreciate you taking down my factual edits. There is nothing wrong with what I am editing and how I am helping better the Wikipedia pages. Frankly you should find something else better to do with your time and do your own research. Thank you! Aliadawns (talk) 08:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to this, I am sorry but datingcelebs.com doesn't satisfy our criteria for reliable sources, and your edits therefore don't comply with our biographies of living persons policy. ----Pontificalibus 08:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming. I do not think that College Swim Team Rankings by College Swimming fits any of the speedy deletion criteria  because A list or table of facts, in a natural order or organization such as chronological, alphabetical, or by rank, is not covered by US copyright, and thus not deleteable under G12. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Choir of New College Oxford, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Lumsden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stormfront (website) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please discuss contentious edits on the talk page. --AdamF in MO (talk) 07:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Pontificalibus reported by User:Adamfinmo (Result: ). Thank you. AdamF in MO (talk) 07:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pontificalibus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realized it just now that the article "List of Finance Companies in Jaipur" clearly violates WP:NOTDIR, therefore should be deleted. I was ignorant while editing the article, I aimlessly focused on finding and adding some credible citations, my mind didn't go - as to why this article/list even needs to be on Wikipedia. Thanks :)

Fedderlloyds (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Article would probably benefit from an infobox, similar to that used in the Liroconite article. Mjroots (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z Street. I think the resolution is okay, but I do see the discussion wasn't entirely satisfactory.

During that, I myself couldn't recall or find the term wp:Broad concept article, but I think that is sort of what I was looking for. A kind of "dead end" was needed, I said in the AFD, which wouldn't exactly be a disambiguation page when that is defined narrowly. Maybe a wp:SIA, i said. Now, finally finding my way to "broad concept article", maybe that is what I should have been saying was needed. That is, an article on the "broad concept" of what "Z Street" and "Y Street" etc. mean, what those as names mean and accomplish (i.e. part of an orderly system of street naming, etc.). Might that have addressed your point of view, I wonder? --Doncram (talk) 17:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, I'm just not convinced there are enough sources to have on article on letter streets. I see Numbered street mentions lettered street names in the lead section, so there might be scope for an actual section in there somewhere.----Pontificalibus 15:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:2020s classical album stubs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:08, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Deprodding of [[:List of previous 7de Laan cast members ]]== I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:List of previous 7de Laan cast members ]], which you proposed for deletion. This list is part of the Wikipedia Soap Opera project and follows the examples of other TV show/soap opera cast lists. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Bayonett (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==Deprodding of [[:List of previous 7de Laan characters ]]== I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:List of previous 7de Laan characters ]], which you proposed for deletion. This list is part of the Wikipedia Soap Opera project and follows the examples of other TV show/soap opera character lists. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Bayonett (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you kindly help me understand me why you nominated the article for deletion.I will like to hear from you to improve it. Thank you. Ruby D-Brown (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that can be improved aren't generally deleted. In the case of Lockdown Economy I don't believe the subject of the article meets the notability guidelines because it hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unless such sources can be found I don't believe the topic of the article is a suitable one for Wikipedia. ----Pontificalibus 07:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pontificalinbus the article has been improved and I believe this article should be considered and not deleted.thank you Ruby D-Brown (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've deleted the Grimsby built up area and are proposing deletion of the Norwich and Ipswich built up areas. If they fail these WP links you mention. How about the Aldershot built up area and Dorset conurbation with Poole Christchurch and Bournemouth? Which covers pretty much the unitary authority? Maybe they should be merged or deleted too. RailwayJG (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RailwayJG: I didn't delete Grimsby built-up area but merged the contents into Grimsby. I'll deal with each one on a case-by-case basis. Generally built-up areas consisting of only one town should be merged to that town, provided there is something worth merging beyond a copy of the ONS stats. Built-up areas with more than one town etc might sometimes be more complicated. ----Pontificalibus 10:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to partake in a discussion on WikiGeography I recently opened. I can't remember link but it's on my contributions list. And okay but I thought given Cleethorpes is also a town it might have been in good stead to warrant it's own. RailwayJG (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw South Normanton village being turned into a town and then found a virtually unsourced article which I've taken to AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area. I don't understand what's going on here. I don't want to upset him but South Normanton being a town is news to me, although it's certainly large and growing. Doug Weller talk 20:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to be quite enthusiastic in squeezing new articles out of some auto-generated polygons that the Office for National Statistics produced one day.--Pontificalibus 20:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You won't upset be my discussion and questioning I have no issues with that. I only get 'upset?' if I am being attacked or misinterpreted and accused of having a so called gripe. I happily am open to discussing authenticity. I just like for things not to be directed at me like Joe Roe did for example RailwayJG (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you were involved in the discussions for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area. I have nominated another one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannock Built-up Area (2nd nomination) for deletion. Eopsid (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The dichotomy of soul and spirit. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 15#The dichotomy of soul and spirit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rublov (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2021 (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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Great Fire of London for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Renerpho (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Barnstar

Hi, Not sure this is the proper way to contact you. I stopped contributing to Wikipedia, because I wrote an article a couple of years ago. The you merged it with the article about one of the protagonists I wrote about. A very famous one, a billionaire. I was at pains to write as sober headed, neutral, as little loaeded as possible about a chain of events which unfortunately involved a controversy (among a lot of other things.) Once merged there were a couple of logins by temporary users. And nothing of my article is left. Depite its meaning, the duality of my writing (events in Germany where the topic filled the papers, yet all sources were in English or French. And of quality publications.) Somebody simply did not like any of this being mentioned at all. That is a loss. Can't you just undo the merger. It was on 27 January 2020‎ and the two articles were <The "Rugbystreit" in German Rugby > and <Hans-Peter Wild> Maybe do a link main article – sub article instead? Then I could extend my contribution. Here and elsewhere, Where I, as a rugby journalist see a need to fill gaps or provide updates. Please. Cheers SimonsenAlan (talk) 18:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architects killed by falling buildings or by falling from buildings has been nominated for merging. 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:40, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Angell, Arizona, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angell, Arizona (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Pontificalibus. Thank you for your work on Church of St Thomas the Apostle, Harty. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article! Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting. I didn’t go the extra level down to check if they were referenced in their own article. Equine-man (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Organ Scholars of New College, Oxford indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of archaeology and history books, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of archaeology and history books until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thankyou for your contribution, much appreciated.

Assuming you would like the page to remain, maybe you would tag it with a

• keep

Best wishes MartinOjsyork (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]