User talk:Sumaterana

Welcome!

Hello, Sumaterana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CPCA stub type and bishop category

I sent Category:CPCA bishops to Categories for Discussion for a rename as categories generally don't use abbreviations in them. As for the stub type you proposed, as a general rule, we prefer that there be at least 60 existing stub articles on a topic before creating anew stub type for them. Because of the nature of stub sorting, as opposed to categorization, stub types need to be kept to a minimum size so as to enable them to be reasonably easily sorted. Caerwine Caer’s whines 17:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Matthew Lee

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Thomas Matthew Lee, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/06/navy_chaplain_gets_2_years_for_sex_crime. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Matthew Lee

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of John Thomas Matthew Lee, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071206/D8TC77LG0.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Matthew Lee

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Thomas Matthew Lee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of John Thomas Matthew Lee. JASpencer (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SDA church criticism section

To the contrary, discussion ought to occur before unilateral removal of the criticism section.

The criticism section of this article has been present and stable for over 18 months now, and has enjoyed the wide consensus of editors. It does not breach any Wikipedia policies in any significant way. It is fair and balanced. It has not acted as a troll magnet.

Criticism is a legitimate part of an article on a topic, in the interests of NPOV. I encourage you to read WP:Criticism and specify any ways that you think this section is in breach. Discussion on this talk page is the next step of the process, before large scale revision. By moving the material to a separate Criticism article, you have created a POV-fork, which is against policy.

With all due respect, a negative attitude towards the Roman Catholic Church is not sufficient reason to remove the criticism section. Thanks, Tonicthebrown (talk) 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic theology, March 4 2008

Hi.

The recent contributor 193.198.138.10 has asked me to help him-or-her-or-they to help rephrase what he-she-they are trying to say to conform to WP:NPOV. I'm mentioning this to you because you've already started to respond to those edits yourself, so I just wanted to let you know that all of that is probably going to be changed soon, hopefully to a form you yourself find agreeable.

Thanks,

--Wikiscient (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To 193.198.138.10:

Okay, here is the net difference after my most recent edits compared to the version that existed right before you started editing this article today:

Roman Catholic theology (diff)

Note that I deleted the "Conservative and secular Catholics" and "Church attendance" because, while interesting, they do not belong in an article about Catholic theology.

If you really want to find a place for those sections, I suggest first putting them on the talk page for comment, and perhaps starting a new page on "Practice of Catholicism" or something like that...

Hope this helped, let me know if you have any further questions, concerns, or issues -- and, anyway, have a nice day, too!

--Wikiscient (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of sourced material

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Seventh-day Adventist theology, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. =Axlq 16:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Sumaterana! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 6 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Zhan Silu - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your contributions to Luiz Marques Barbosa have violated the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy for the following reason: Creating unsourced biographies of living people, and poorly sourced WP:BLP1Es. Please read the policy carefully, and avoid making future edits which violate it.

Remember that Wikipedia articles can affect real people's lives. We have an ethical and legal responsibility to ensure that biographical content is written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.

Consider this your only warning, made pursuant to the requirements of this Arbitration remedy. Further edits in violation of policy will result in special enforcement sanctions, which could include restrictions on reverts or other specified behavior, bans from editing any BLP or BLP-related page or set of pages, blocks of up to one year in length, or any other measures which may be considered necessary. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 00:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2010 (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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Neocatechumens for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neocatechumens 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/Neocatechumens 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. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko 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/Daniel David Ntanda Nsereko 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.