User talk:Mike H.

His Holiness[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! if only to note that like me (see the edit history of the popes after Gregory XVI, who seems to be the cutoff for this nonsense) you are one of the innocent, alas. I'm obviously letting your edits sit, but you will have a few determined people descend on you for your reasonable adherence to standard practice (it's the same with other monarchs) and your edits will be reverted.... Like you, I didn't know there had been a decision made by a few people on some obscure page, to disregard custom and the universal practice of encyclopedias, in favor of a curious scheme that doesn't help Wikipedia's image. You'll learn! Best, Bill 19:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted this message on two of the Pope pages you have been reverting so I thought I'd leave it here for you to consider.

There have been several reverts of "His Holiness" on this page by User:Mike H. referring to the fact that this title only applies to the current pope. I have reverted this edit after learning that no, it doesn't only apply to the current Pope, it can apply to all Popes throughout history. Regarding the actual inclusion of this honorific, I refer to the Dalai Lama's page where he is referred to as His Holiness but not when labeled on the page. I think that initially the title should be removed while used later in the article as it would vernacularly or in the titling of pictures, perhaps as a way of resolving this cross-article conflict. Also, maybe we could center this discussion on His Holiness instead of spreading it around to each individual pope?--The Grza 22:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to the Wikipedida article Style (manner of address), wherein it clearly states "Pope John Paul II was called His Holiness only until his death." -- Regards, Mike 22:10, 14 July 2005 (EDT)

It's quite hopeless, Mike; there's a group of about 2 or 3 people who feel very strongly about all Popes after Gregory XVI; presumably, much less so about Gregory XVI and before. These 2 or 3 people will block and revert endlessly. There are better things to do with one's time; so what if Wikipedia looks foolish? Bill 02:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the article says that the title leaves after the death of a Pope, but I contacted several Priests and churches to check and none of them had heard anything of the sort. Do you have a citation to show that the title leaves besides that sentence on the Style page? --The Grza 02:44, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I have been nothing but courteous and sincere in my attempts to resolve this amicably and factually. Please don't post messages around that assume that I'm involved in some attack on you or your opinion. --The Grza 02:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread your post and acted in haste. Do you have any citations for the end of the Holiness title for Popes? --The Grza 03:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? "[P]ost messages around that assume that [you're] involved in some attack on [me] or [my] opinion" ??? Where have I done that? -- Regards, Mike H. 23:03, 14 July 2005 (EDT)

It is Wikipedia policy to use the styles appropriate to a monarchical office when referring to a deceased monarch. That is partly because some monarchical styles have changed in time, so it would offer the chance to indicate what the style was during an individual reign. It does not imply in any way that a deceased individual still holds the style, merely that that was the style used for them in their lifetime. That is why some past popes are referred to as His Holiness. The policy was followed for months until a small band of users began waging edit wars by removing all styles. A compromise was agreed whereby those articles had had their styles added should be left with them, and those that had not yet had them added would not do so, pending a less heated debate on the issue of usage in the future. That is why 20th century and some 19th century popes have styles and others don't, or why modern monarchs but mediævbal monarchs don't. The former had already had styles entered, the latters had not yet, when the edit war erupted and a policy of in effect 'do not disturb' was agreed.

Please stop removing styles. It is agreed that those articles already with them should keep them for the moment. Any attempt to breach the compromise, either by removing styles where it was agreed to leave them in, or install them where it was agreed not to put them in, will simply be reverted every time. All Wikipedians are supposed to follow the agreed naming conventions and manual of style rules, both of which endorse the use of styles in historic articles on hereditary monarchs (kings and queens) and elective monarchs (popes). FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gif\^(caint) 17:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"It is Wikipedia policy...." Where was this agreed on? Bill 18:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:MMMatRoyalAlbertHallMay1969.jpg[edit]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:MMMatRoyalAlbertHallMay1969.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then 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. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Pope0255b.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pope0255b.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 User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Pope0256a.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Pope0256a.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:Image legality questions. 13:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of McKenna Mendelson Mainline[edit]

The article McKenna Mendelson Mainline has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Poorly sourced Vanispamcruftisement article about a non-notable musical group. Fails WP:CREATIVE

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dolovis (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of McKenna Mendelson Mainline for deletion[edit]

The article McKenna Mendelson Mainline is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/McKenna Mendelson Mainline until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Dolovis (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer be able to have them marked as minor by default. For more information on what a minor edit is, see WP:MINOR or feel to get in touch.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Pope0256c.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Pope0256c.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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]