User talk:Espiritista

Image tagging for Image:Image214.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Image214.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Tagumpay.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tagumpay.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Espiritista, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Thank you for creating and contributing to the article Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth). I wanted to inform you that I have added some Cleanup tags to the article since, at the moment it requires some editing to meet Wikipedia's standards. Sbacle 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC) Sbacle 13:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth)[edit]

Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan (Triumph of Truth) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Cricketgirl (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Reconsideration of article Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan[edit]

I really wish to be clarified why the article "Center Tagumpay ng Katotohanan" was deleted after a year its been posted.

I believe its not an advertisement nor a propaganda but it features the TRUTH of the present works of the Blessed Spirits, the intention was to inform mankind on the fullfillment of God’s promised that the Spirit of Truth shall be sent to teach all things, as it is wrtten in the scripture. How I wish you could come to the place and see for yourselves the actual happening of God' s direct works and maybe, as an eyewitness, you could write a better article and become part of the world' s history, a very important occurence to mankind.

Is the Holy Scriptures not enough as a verifiable source of the article?, collaborated with the actual testimonies of the witnesses testifying the fullfillment of God' s promised that the Holy Spirit shall be sent to teach all things, things that had not been seen, (unwritten matters), unexpected things to happen and the deep things of God and only the Holy Spirit could make it known, as it is written, I Corinthians 2: 9-11;

Therefore, if this is what is happening as embodied in the deleted article, there are no other verifiable source to be referred to, except the Holy Scriptures, and the people could read it first in Wikipedia, of which I wish to happen.

The Holy Spirit said that the time has come to let mankind know of the current occurences and I was just fortunate enough (as a beginner) to tap your prestigious free site, considering that the article is for the gain of mankind for free.

Thus, please guide me to improve the article to suit your requirement and be part of the history and an opportunity to draw another legacy of our lives. I am sorry if somebody was offended but it is not my intention to hurt any one who edited the posting, had I known the complete procedures of editing rules, I would be thankful instead. Please bear my innocence, all I wish is to pitch in the TRUTH of the present works of the Blessed Spirits which could also be verified from the Holy Scriptures.

Again please reconsider the article.Espiritista (talk) (bensj 03:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(bensj 10:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC))

Hi bensj I am trying to respond to your helpme request at Talk:Center_Tagumpay_ng_Katotohanan. The article was deleted because it is not considered notable, or even if it is notable, the article did not show how it was notable. If you look at Wikipedia:FIRST it says:

People frequently add pages to Wikipedia without considering whether the topic is really notable enough to go into an encyclopedia. Because Wikipedia does not have the space limitations of paper-based encyclopedias, our notability policies and guidelines allow a wide range of articles - however, they do not allow any topic to be included. A particularly common special case of this is pages about people, companies or groups of people that do not assert the notability or importance of their subject, so we have decided that such pages may be speedily deleted under our WP:SPEEDY policy. This can offend - so please consider whether your chosen topic is notable enough for Wikipedia, and assert (or preferably show!) the notability or importance of your article's subject if you decide it is notable enough. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in existence

As you can imagine, Wikipedia cannot have an article on everything, on every company, business, organisation, club, venture, project, or team.
I understand you believe your organisation does good work, but if it is not considered notable then Wikipedia cannot have an article on it. Rfwoolf (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would explain the problem a little differently. I think the topic of Spiritist religions in the Phillipines is notable. The problem arose because this particular original article was not written to WIKI standards, some attempts to correct the problems were reverted (probably through misunderstanding of the process) and the consensus was that the efforts that had been expended to improve the article had not raised it to the appropriate standard. Although my preference would have been to continue to work with it, I must defer to the consensus. I do note a problem with the WIKI process, however, because the result is for the article to "disappear" without the opportunity to save some portions that could have been inserted into a related article. I would appreciate advice on how to raise this type of concern with the deletion process. In any event,bensj, I think you should focus now on the Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc. article to try to get it into the proper shape. I'll spend some time over the next month to see what I can do to help.Vontrotta (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vontrotta indeed I agree there is a problem with the Wiki process, if you look at the ramblings on my userpage you'll see at one point I was rather ticked off at how articles are deleted when they could be salvaged. I also don't like the summaries people use in their deletion log, it's cryptic nonsense that newbies can't undersetand, I mean, what does "G7" mean? You have to go through about 4-5 pages of wiki policy before you arrive at a possible meaning. I in fact messaged the admin that deleted the article in question and requested he be more explicit in the future. Regarding your comments about what to do about this issue, technically articles can be undeleted by going to a sysop, or more accurately a sysop has access to the deleted content and is only usually willing to paste the content into a user subpage. Clearly this is ludicrously stupid - because this denies the community an opportunity to collaborate in improving the article. If the article is restored back to the deleted page, it will be speedy-deleted on grounds of "reposting of already-deleted content". So you can see it's a nightmare. So once an article is deleted because it's "not up to scratch", it's basically goodbye article.

The nature of the problem is what I call deletionist admins, and what makes a lot of them deletionists is the fact that they score brownie points for deleting articles. There are admins that spend their hours just focusing on articles to delete. Compare this to other users who spend their time looking for ways to improve articles, they just look for opportunities and excuses to delete, they feel it is their role in the wiki community. When they find a problem with an article, they check if there's grounds for deletion, and if there is, they put it up for deletion, and their cronies look at the excuse for deletion and have to agree. So that's another problem: some 'grounds' for deletion aren't grounds at all. For example if an article 'reads like a how-to guide', that is grounds for deletion. But clearly, such a problem can easily be corrected! If an article is badly sourced, that's another reason for deletion. These are all fixable!

So the process is flawed because there is nothing compelling admins to put up notices on the article asking users to fix this problem. Many an article have been deleted without putting up reasons on the actual article. Then the bad process continues (as you know) because the content is not easily recoverable.

All in all, that is the state of affairs on Wikipedia. Delete-delete-delete. Rfwoolf (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. When I went to the admin's site, I found that he had announced his retirement - almost immediately after deleting the article. I have requested that he repost it to my talk page, but we will see.Vontrotta (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited Union Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas Inc[edit]

Edited paragraph 2 of section "From Direct Revelations of the Holy Spirit" and section "Salvation and Progress of the spirit, also added section "Direct Mediumship" for reason of further clarifications.

Please advice if it conforms with your standards.

Thank you.

bensj 15:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unión Espiritista Cristiana de Filipinas, Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Direct (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Espiritista. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]