User talk:Mgroop

Welcome!

Hello, Mgroop, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Media copyright questions page

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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod 04:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred style is to put articles into the most specific possible categories and avoid the higher-level categories unless there's nothing else that fits. There are lots of articles that don't follow this, mainly because of the extent and tediousness of the work fixing it would take. But at least we can avoid adding to the problem. A.J.A. 20:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I ask for you to undue the removal. Many of us who work on the unaccredited schools use that category to watch the pages. If anything the unaccredited theological category, I started, should be deleted. Arbusto 02:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits [1] at the Hamilton article are an excellent reason why both categories should be included. Had you read the article, it says, Hamilton had a church and used religious exemptions to get around laws. Thus, it claimed to be a theological school. Arbusto 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the article at Hamilton University. Just because a college claims religious exemption does not make it a seminary or theological college. I looked at their offical webpage. A Theological college would offer mainly Bible classes, this college (now Richardson) offers business and the like. You can't call something a seminary when their colleges don't offer some Bible major. Mgroop 13:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note schools like Almeda University claim to be religious, but are clearly diploma mills. Arbusto 08:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently we have three similar categories:

• Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning
• Category:Unaccredited Christian universities and colleges
• Category:Unaccredited seminaries and theological colleges

I personally find it unncessary to have all three of these, and as it stands they don't make much sense. I was trying to make some sense of them yesterday with my edits. However, I am open to suggestions of better ways. Maybe combining these three into one category, and adding *Category:Christian universities and colleges to all the Bible colleges. Let me know your thoughts. Mgroop 14:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning should be the main group, with the other two as sub-categories. I'm sure there are enough articles to make it worthwhile to have have the sub-categories. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I notice that you have provided some information in some of the Southern Gospel music articles. I would like to invite you to join WikiProject Southern Gospel! We need all of the help we can get! T. White 09:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my knowledge on Southern Gospel is pretty limited, I mostly am aware of the "big" names, Gold City, The Cathedrals, and Legacy Five, and one of those doesn't sing anymore.

Hey there! I have removed the external links which you added to The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), as they are not actually about the book itself. Because we try to keep external links as relative to the article as we can, and in this case, they were deemed to be unnecessary. If you wish to discuss this further, I've left a message on the article's talk page. --Sagaciousuk ^(talk) 20:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This syntax adds an article to a category: [[Category:Foo]]

This syntax creates a link to a category: [[:Category:Foo]]

Note the colon. >Radiant< 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me that, I had that syntax wrongMgroop 17:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There now is a proposed project to deal specifically with articles relating to Baptists at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Baptists. If you would be interested in joining such a group, please indicate as much by adding your name there. Thank you. John Carter 19:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Last Jihad (series), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This would be better as navbox: list is too specific and adds no new information than that in the articles about the books.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, 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. Cerejota (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SwordOfTheLordSign.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 website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:SwordOfTheLord.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JohnMorton.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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CurtisHutson.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 [email protected], 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 {{OTRS 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 [email protected].

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. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on 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. Kelly ^hi! 13:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Bill Rice Ranch has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Was just going to tag, but I'm not seeing quite enough by way of in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject (WP:CORPDEPTH).

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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:SamPJones.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 seven 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. mattbr 08:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]