User talk:MamaGeek

Welcome!

Hello, MamaGeek, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! - RoyBoy [∞] 18:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lancet study

MamaGeek here: The Lancet's "meta-analysis" is hopelessly flawed. The analysis was conducted by UNFPA-funded scientists, and anyone doing a little research can see that the UNFPA is a big abortion backer. Furthermore, 15 published peer-reviewed studies were rejected from the analysis outright for unscientific reasons (i.e., they couldn't locate original authors of some studies). All of those studies concluded an average of 80% elevated risk of post-abortion cancer. In addition, these scientists included 28 new studies which were never published or peer-reviewed, which of course supported the no-link position.

I will not add my own text, but I will most certainly remove the PP and Lancet citations.

Hello MamaGeek. Your work is certainly appreciated and I actually share your concerns about the "Lancet" (I call it the Beral) study. However since you are new here you may not be aware of some of implications of your edits. For example this paragraph is also the introductory paragraph to the main Abortion-Breast_Cancer_(ABC)_hypothesis article which I wrote. In that main article in the meta-analysis section criticisms of the study (by Dr. Brind) are linked to. The reason I've agreed with Tony on letting that meta-analysis be in the introductory paragraph is because it is "recent news", and its prominence in the entry reflects its prominence in reality. Furthermore, I was not aware the meta-analysis was "UNFPA-funded" (I'm not even aware of who they are), but it hardly suprises me there can pro-choice be conflicts of interest in the research. Could you please provide citations, ideally online citations of this so that it can be included in the main article further down. However currently the meta-analysis will stay where it is until I can be satisfied this is the case. If it is then it will either be removed or re-edited to include the obvious conflict of interest. Also you can sign your entries with - ~~~~ which provides your name and the time of your message. Also I should note that there is a 3 revert rule where, if necessary Tony or I would seek arbitration as a result of continued edits. If you read my main article on the ABC link I think you can appreciate I have more than an open mind on the ABC issue. If you also read the talk history I have a debate with Tony and Marcie about raising one study to the introduction above all others. I conceded the argument because the Lancet study is news, and should be reflected as such in the encyclopedia. But that doesn't stop us from being critical of it. (this has been cc'd to Talk:MamaGeek's) - RoyBoy [∞] 18:08, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

pro-life

You are invited to help remove POV phrasing from the article. Alienus is pushing. ____G_o_o_d____ 05:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please join Evil in an edit war. The more people who participate, the more people get banned. Alienus 05:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you have good ideas. Please stop by. ____G_o_o_d____ 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are most welcome - keep them coming: pro-life, abortion, partial-birth abortion. ____G_o_o_d____ 15:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:Cpc.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:Cpc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Andrew c 23:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Pages

Nice to mee you. Please don't edit other peoples user pages, it is not considered polite. Dominick ^(TALK) 15:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I thought I was in the talk page. I won't do that anymore. MamaGeek Joy 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, welcome to Catholicism 101. Dominick ^(TALK) 19:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Control and VandalProof

It was not a content dispute. The IP of the anonymous editor that added the information had only been used to send spam links to the website sirensmag.com. I used VandalProof to revert all of his/her edits that added the spam links. --Zpb52 16:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I always make a distinction between the vandalism and spam, since the former is just unrelated nonsense, while the latter is related to the topic, but is for advertising purposes, and not informative. I understand now that VandalProof is used for spam, not just pure graffiti-like vandalism. Thanks for setting me straight! MamaGeek Joy 16:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, MamaGeek! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Eagle talk 19:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic vs. Roman Catholic

Howdy MamaGeek, I don't think we've met on here, yet, but having seen your userpage, I feel like I already know you!

I am orginally from the Diocese of Arlington, and know the Church there well. Our family has lived in Alexandria and the Vienna areas since the 1960's. My folks now live west of Fredricksburg at Lake of the Woods. Anyway, that is TMI, but your reference to the Springfield mall brought back a lot of memories.

Anyway, the purpose of this note is to ask your opinion about the terms, "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church." I love the pope as you do and am proud to be "Roman." However, there are some Anglicans who hover over all the WP articles to make sure that Catholics always refer to ourselves as "Roman Catholics." Their claim is that "Catholic" on its own is ambiguous because since the Reformation the Catholic Church is now a reality that embraces all Christians especially Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox. They say that the (Roman) Catholic Church no longer has a claim on the name of the ancient Catholic Church because we are just one of the branches that "broke off." As I understand it, the Anglican Church broke off from Rome, but that the Catholic Church was unchanged. As they understand it, the Catholic Church splint into the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.

Now, I am not asking you to get into this argument. However, I would like to hear from a faithful Catholic who understands WP whether or not this is an argument worth fighting. If it is, then I will bring it up on this WikiProject. If it isn't then I will let it go. I guess I just hate the fact that on WP the Church has to give up her name of 1900 years because a few Anglicans keep claiming that they are "confused" by it.

So, MamaGeek, thanks for reading. Let me know what you think. --Vaquero100 21:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry about it. Even in the Roman Catholic article, it says that when most people say "Catholic," they usually mean Roman Catholic. I would never include Anglicans in the term "Catholic," and I doubt even those Anglicans who argue against our use of it really use it for themselves, but there are all those Orthodox churches that are Catholic and should be included: Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, etc. For that reason alone, I think "Roman Catholic" is a good term to use. No, we never broke off, so that's a line of reasoning I don't buy, but I just don't think using the term "Roman Catholic" is a problem or anything to argue about. MamaGeek Joy 11:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. God bless your evening.--Vaquero100 04:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MamaGeek. I just wanted to jump in before I stop procrastinating. Most high-church denominations, be they Protestant or Roman Catholic, confess belief "in one holy catholic and apostolic church." As such, I consider myself to be a "catholic" Christian, even if I am not a "Catholic" Christian. I don't think it's appropriate to use denominational dogma to justify a monopoly on the term, just as I would never use one of Luther's screeds to justify excluding Roman Catholicism from the universal church. So I agree with you, but for a very different reason. In church history, the term "catholic" spent three times as long referring to the whole of the church than it did referring to its largest denomination.

I'd also think that most Orthodox would disagree with your claim that they are "Catholic" rather than "catholic," just as they would (and do) disagree about which church is schismatic. But then, that's the trouble with schisms, isn't it? =)

Mostly I wanted to say thanks for inadvertently helping me with something - I used your user page as a loose template to set mine up. I didn't know what userboxes were until I was about halfway through it, or how to set up a table - so I wasn't able to find the appropriate help pages. It's kind of hard to know where to start when you don't know anything, so thanks for having a good user page. =)

Almondwine 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked my page, and consider myself flattered at your imitation. :) MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries...

I am not offended even a little bit. Nandesuka 18:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VandalProof 1.2 Now Available

After a lenghty, but much-needed Wikibreak, I'm happy to announce that version 1.2 of VandalProof is now available for download! Beyond fixing some of the most obnoxious bugs, like the persistent crash on start-up that many have experienced, version 1.2 also offers a wide variety of new features, including a stub-sorter, a global user whitelist and blacklist, navigational controls, and greater customization. You can find a full list of the new features here. While I believe this release to be a significant improvement over the last, it's nonetheless nowhere near the end of the line for VandalProof. Thanks to Rob Church, I now have an account on test.wikipedia.org with SysOp rights and have already been hard at work incorporating administrative tools into VandalProof, which I plan to make available in the near future. An example of one such SysOp tool that I'm working on incorporating is my simple history merge tool, which simplifies the process of performing history merges from one article into another. Anyway, if you haven't already, I'd encourage you to download and install version 1.2 and take it out for a test-drive. As always, your suggestions for improvement are always appreciated, and I hope that you will find this new version useful. Happy editing! --AmiDaniel (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for the Barnstar! Dominick ^(TALK) 14:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome MamaGeek Joy 14:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the saintstar

Always knew I was good as gold ;-) --Isolani 16:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I`ll keep up the good work, one day the CathEnc will be entirely on Wiki![reply]

Thank you

Many thanks for your welcome. I am a member of WikiProject Wisconsin. I started many of teh articles about the Roman Catholic religious orders which started in Wisconsin. I also started articles about Father Solanus Casey and Bishop James Michael Harvey. I hope I can be of some help.RFD 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello there, I was wondering if you would please modify your signature to conform to the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. The general guidelines are that signatures shouldn't contain images, they shouldn't contain unnecessary internal links or any external links, and they shouldn't be unnecessarily long in Wiki source. The reasoning for this final bit is that overly long signatures tend to overwhelm the actual comments in edit mode, making it hard to track down and respond to specific comments. You can fix your signature by removing any images and external links, any unnecessary links (like links to Wikipedian organizations, articles, or subpages in userspace), and removing excessive color, font, and formatting code. Thank you. --Cyde↔Weys 17:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. MamaGeek 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove discussion-induced links

We moved the catholic link up to the top, but please respect the other links as well.Spicynugget 19:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, what are you talking about? MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Welcome to the WikiProject Catholicism 101!

Greetings MamaGeek,

I simply wish to thank you very much for your welcome. I hope that we will have the opportunity to collaborate on the elaboration of articles and of the project itself.

God bless,

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 17:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Guardian angel (spirit)

Deleted. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 19:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cervical mucus

Please don't change cervical mucus to "cervical fluid". Cervical mucus is so-called for the good reason that it is mucus. It is also the term most commonly used by doctors, and is the most common term in general use (with 380,000 hits vs. 47,000 Google hits for "cervical mucus" and "cervical fluid" respectively). Calling it otherwise won't make it any nicer: we might as well change all the references to "vagina" or "penis" to "hoo-hoo", if we are worried about offending the easily offended. -- The Anome 11:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change it on the Cervix article, but only in the NFP article, because that is the term used by method instructors nowadays. That article is about the method, and doctors don't teach the method. I will not change it again, but I will start a discussion on the talk page. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please start discussions on individual articles on the article talk page, not here. That way everyone interested in the article can get involved. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Thanks for your comments. -- The Anome 12:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BirthControl infobox

I've tried to make this live with added conditional testing (as works with Template:Drugbox), but I seem to have 2 problems:

Getting optional captions to display and more importantly
For optional paramters whose row should not be shown at all if undefined, a blank line is still appearing. See Template talk:BirthControl infobox where I show the problems as related to an example mark-up for condoms

Can you help fix coding using the parsefunctions ? PS I shall be on a wikibreak from Monday for 10 days, so catch up with you then... :-) David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI and the Sacred Heart

On May 15, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI sent a letter to the Superior General of the Jesuits on the 50th aniiversary of the encyclical Haurites Aquas of Pope Pius Xii on the Sacred Heart. I think Pope Benedict's letter should be incorporated in the article on the Sacred Heart. The letter is on the Holy See website. Thank you-RFD 13:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and include that content. That's what the collaboration effor it about. Thanks for contributing! MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings-I added a paragraph to the article. My apologies for the delay. I hope you are doing well. Thank youRFD

Guttmacher

You mentioned in an edit of some of my info that Guttmacher Institute is run by Planned Parenthood, but in fact it is not. Just wanted to clarify. ASwann 03:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The founder, Alan Guttmacher, was "president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation in the 1960s and early 1970s." (About Alan Guttmacher - Alan Guttmacher institute offical website) In 1998, Congress gave Planned Parenthood and its affiliated organizations, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the Alan Guttmacher Institute, $142,976,618 to support its domestic and international "family planning" agenda. (Government Accounting Office, July 18, 2000 memo to members of Congress). MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 11:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be great info to include on the Guttmacher Institute page.LCP 01:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Just want to say "Thank you" for your editing on the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart. They were big gaps until your work on them. --Vaquero100 13:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I'm still working on Sacred Heart. I'm trying to incorporate a lot of the Catholic Encyclopedia info. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 13:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights of Columbus

Hi! Thanks for voting for the Knights of Columbus on the Catholic Collaboration page! I know that it is not the CCW article for a few weeks, but right now it is up for FAC so if you could see your way over there early that would be great. Right now the only person holding out on supporting it has a complaint about the prose, so copyediting would be particularly helpful. Thanks again! --Briancua 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic devotions

Hey MamaGeek.

I just started the Catholic devotions article. It's not much yet, but it is a start. Thanks for your interest. --Vaquero100 17:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Charitable organizations in support of abortion

Hi MamaGeek, I had removed Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation from this cat as, according to NPR this morning, Warren Buffett had withheld some money from them because they were not explicitly in support of abortion rights. I then started noticing some definitional issues. I've just put it up at CFD and thought I would drop you a courtesy notice. Regards, BT 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Abortion

Hello. First, I would like to welcome you onboard the fledgling WikiProject Abortion. :-) Second, I invite you to please participate in the WikiProject discussion page, as some of your recent "political organization" categorizations — such as Roman Catholic Church and World Health Organization — seem to be of tangential or uncertain relation to pro-life or pro-choice political activism. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 15:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

What version did you revert the page to? It's neither clear from your edit summary, nor the resulting content. It was apparently some substantially older edit. Please explain.

Thanks,

--24.153.209.20 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted to the last version before the most recent, basically just undoing the most recent change. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Apparitions

Thanks very much for your helpful inclusion of the validity criteria for Marian apparitions. I've located the source and will incorporate it when I re-edit my own articles on Veronica Lueken and Mary Ann Van Hoof. Incidentally, I'm not sure if you've read the accompanying Unity Publications article about Van Hoof's background on the Necedah Shrine article, but there appears to have been considerable debate about whether or not she was ever a legitimate Catholic, given her Spiritualist upbringing. User: Calibanu 12:58, 07 July 2006

You're welcome. I'll be sure to check out those articles. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Catholicism Assessment

Hello, fellow WikiProject Catholicism member. The project has recently begun work on assessing articles relating to Catholicism, and you are invited to comment and participate. The subpage for this assessment is located here. Thank you. —Mi ra 07:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote!

This is a reminder to go vote for the
Catholic Collaboration Effort.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.
Current nominations:

Move Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church

There is a vote at Talk:Roman Catholic Church: A Vote on the Title of this Article on moving Roman Catholic Church to Catholic Church. You are invited to review it. --WikiCats 03:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violin

That was a very welcome paragraph I must say...you must be a violinist to have added it! That is one of the articles I would like to see becoming a featured article one day. --HappyCamper 18:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapbooking "Advertisement," Supposedly? How?

Hey, MamaGeek,

I have questions for you, if I may. I noticed that there used to be a reference to the first scrapbooking store, Keeping Memories Alive, in the Scrapbooking article, but then you removed it because you thought it looked too much like an ad. Here are my questions:

1: Why did you think it looked too much like an ad, even though those were simply facts stated that were backed up by a reference to the proof from the web page that tells the exact story of the industry's inception in detail?

2: Why does it seem like you believe you're the--well, okay, for lack of a better term--"boss," I guess, kind of, of that article, so it's like "your duty" to remove that segment?

Please go ahead and respond here, and I'll come back and check it for updates. I wish there was a way to send private messages.

Thanks. (The above unsigned comment was made by 67.166.97.218 at 02:23, December 6, 2006)

If you think that it belongs, go ahead and put it back, with your justification in the Talk page. I haven't always taken the time to investigate each and every external link that gets thrown into that article. It happens so often and it really clutters it up with a bunch of trash and makes it read like a big advertisement for Scrapbooking suppliers. I've sort of taken a mother-hen approach to the article, because I put so much work into it, but I'm certainly not the "boss." I just try to encourage folks to discuss things on the Talk page before putting in any external links because of the great potential for abuse in this particular article. Oh, and please always sign your comments on my Talk page. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diocesan Infobox

To the WikiProject Catholicism members

I have proposed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Catholicism an infobox for Catholic Dioceses. I have not gotten any feedback on this proposal, so I’m culling feedback, advice, corrections, etc. for this. If you have the time, would you check out User:SkierRMH/Diocese_Infobox and give me some feedback! Thanks much!!

Fair Oaks Mall

Fair Oaks Mall has been proposed for deletion. An editor felt the subject might not be notable enough for an article. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability for the relevant concerns. An example of notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (websites). If you can improve the article to address these concerns, please do so.

If no one objects to the deletion within five days by removing the "prod" notice, the article may be deleted without further discussion. If you remove the prod notice, the deletion process will stop, but if an editor is still not satisfied that the article meets Wikipedia guidelines, it may be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for consensus. NickelShoe (Talk) 06:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see that the article survived the deletion debate, although I didn't get to it soon enough to contribute. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WPAbortion

Hello, MamaGeek. As a member of WPAbortion, just thought I'd take a moment to alert you to the recent creation of a project Watchlist and Noticeboard, which may both help you keep up-to-date. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 19:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Museum of the Marine Corps

MamaGeek, thank you for the wonderful photos from the National Museum of the Marine Corps. I took several photos when we visited the museum in November, but none turned out as well as yours. I appreciate your taking the time to add them to the page.

One correction that I made: the "cold" room actually commemorates the Korean War, not the Vietnam War. My father-in-law's Marine company were the souls entrenched on that hill near Chosin Reservoir. Many of them are still around, and most attended their reunion in D.C. in November, which coincided with the opening of the museum.

Best wishes, and thanks for your many contributions. --JFreeman ^(talk) 04:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your infobox: Nonprofit charitable organisations

I would like to start using the infobox for Non-profit Charitable Organsations you proposed on 8 June 2006. Template:Infobox Non-profit charitable organisations is the right page I guess, do you have any objections to my proposed template usage? ThijsN 10:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go right ahead! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of North American Malls with Children's Play Areas

I've nominated List of North American Malls with Children's Play Areas, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of North American Malls with Children's Play Areas satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have 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/List of North American Malls with Children's Play Areas and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of North American Malls with Children's Play Areas 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. --Vossanova ^o< 16:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Buried_car_parma.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Buried_car_parma.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. 08:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not upload the original image. I downloaded it, edited it to correct the lighting, and uploaded the corrected image. I don't know where the original came from. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Abortion

Hi, MamaGeek. Would you mind checking out some of the recent discussions at Template talk:Abortion if you have the time? There's been a lot of debate over the addition of "Birth control" to the template, and, discussion has also spilled over into other areas of the template, too. I think that your opinions could really help us to sort out some of the unresolved issues. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 04:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite, and I'm flattered that you think I could be of assistance in this matter, but other than my observation that "Birth control" might be a useful addition to the template, I don't really have much of an opinion about it. I also don't know much about templates in Wikipedia, nor do I have the time to learn, or to become involved in a lengthly discussion. I hope you and the others discussing the issue can reach a good consensus. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input would be appreciated all the same. You don't have to be a particular expert — I don't think that most of the people involved in the current debate are highly-knowledgeable in template-related stuff — but you could still weigh the arguments that are being put forward and lend your advice. Your input is always welcome: the more voices partcipating in a discussion, the more likely that a solution will be reached. :-) -Severa (!!!) 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I just don't have the time MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult of the Virgin

Please stop reverting this - 'cult' is the precise scholarly term. Have a look at Talk:Saint_Demetrius_of_Thessaloniki#Cult.3F InfernoXV 09:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

First of all, no need to feel bad about nominating a pic that isn't FP status...we all make mistakes. Secondly, according to your user page, you're associated with the U.S. Navy as a civilian, so if it isn't asking too much, can you add you name to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by military branch? Thanxs a bunch. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I didn't even know there was such a list. I've added my name. Thanks! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 00:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Hope to see you around and have fun editing! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 04:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article improvement drive

Hi, MamaGeek. I have just started an Article Improvement Drive for WikiProject Abortion. Please feel free to nominate an article you believe could use improvement. I think this might be a good way to help motivate and organise work on our project's articles. Thanks!

P.S. I realise you might be too busy to actively participate in collaborations, but, as a project member, you're invited to just nominate an article, if you would like. :-) -Severa (!!!) 01:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists

You reverted an editor's changes at Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, stating there was no discussion. However, there are two different open threads on the talk page discussing that content. I personally think its best to have the content in question during a content dispute removed from the page while the discussion is on going. At the very least, could you at least comment a little further on the inclusion of the content? Thanks!-Andrew c 00:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew c, because I added Mama Geek to my "watch list" today, I happened to notice your comment.

Mama Geek is correct. There was absolutely no discussion prior to deletion of the 36 words in question. Mama Geek's reversion was entirely proper. There were two threads on this general subject: "Undue Weight" and "Balance".

The concerns expressed in the "Undue Weight" thread had already been addressed by shortening the material, so that eventually Mama Geek ~~eventually~~ restored a mere 36 words rather than restoring a larger number of words. There had been no suggestion in the "Undue Weight" section that those 36 words would be deleted.

Likewise, the "Balance" thread was not started until after those 36 words were deleted.Ferrylodge 00:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Skateboardingtrick.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Skateboardingtrick.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the GFDL licensing information to the image. I don't know why I left it off. I think I uploaded several images that day, and must have missed that one. Anyway, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I took the photograph myself, so there is no copyright violation. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Scrapbooker

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Professional Scrapbooker, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, it is best not to propose deletion of articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Od Mishehu 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yummytork I wrote the article, and will be improving it to discuss what a professional scrapbooker is in my opinion, and will continue to update it as necessary. Please don't remove it or mark it for deletion as it is a seperate category altogether from scrapbooking; just like basketball is different from basketball professional, scrapbooking is different from scrapbooking professional.

I can't delete an article. Only administrators can do that. I have nominated it, and it will undergo review. So far, the only response to the review has been to keep it, so it may remain. That remains to be seen. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 14:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not Spam

Spam is a term that should probably not be associated with Scrap booking professional, seeing as how it is extremely informational, has relevant, verifiable statistics, and has ONE link out to a relevant source. Spam is useless junk for the purpose of driving traffic to one's website with generally more than one link. (If I was spamming, you would know it). The link on my scrapbooking page is for informational use only. User:Yummytork

Hey! Re: Pic

Thanxs for the message. To link a pic without displaying it, place a colon in from of the image name like I did here Image:TylerDavidsonFountainCloseup1.jpg. Personally, I like the pic a lot. It might be promoted to FP, but it'll be far from unanimous. It has the high resolution and encyclopedic attributes going for it. However, it's not as sharp as I would have liked and there's some blown highlights from the flash (or the light source behind you). You can downsize it, but that's usually discouraged. If you feel strongly about the pic, then by all means nominate it! However, if you you're not willing to go through the hassle of the FPC process, then it's a still a great pic by it's own rights. Sorry I couldn't be more definite with my answer. =) Jumping cheese 20:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re whipped slave image candidature

Hi - I've posted a response on the candidate page (and this message on my talk page) with a load of reasons why I can't support either edit. I'd looked at doing a retouch myself (especially where there seems to be a load of detail missing around the eyes) and decided it was just impossible to retouch without "inventing" new detail. I sincerely appreciate both your efforts and the note to inform me of them and hope you don't take my response too personally! Best wishes, mikaul^talk 08:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CPC

I have added this page to my watchlist. Don't know if I can contribute in any appreciable way, but I will keep my eye out for any blatant or subtle POV-pushing (something that I notice has occurred there recently...). LotR 17:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I appreciate your help! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 12:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crossposting

Hi,

I cross-posted your butterfly identification request to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lepidoptera/Unidentified_pictures also. Regards, AshLin 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 15:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can look now. We've done what we can. You'll have to wait longer or google/study for more input. AshLin 16:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:JohnAdamsStatue.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:JohnAdamsStatue.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Shell ^babelfish 13:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photograph myself, and have updated the copywrite information on it. Thanks for alerting me before removing the image. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pig picture

I noticed your pig picture on Pig with the request for help placing it. I hope you don't mind, but I moved it to Hampshire (pig) where a picture was greatly lacking. Pig seems to me to have too many pictures of domestic pigs and Domestic pig didn't offer a quick answer, though both pages could use a lot of work. If you disagree, go ahead and put it back in. Thanks for submitting the picture.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I was just looking for a good place to put it. I'm glad you found a better spot. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fountain Square, Cincinnati

I now agree with you and I did change it to the square picture. Meckstroth.jm, 21:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

This is a reminder to go vote for the
Catholic Collaboration Effort.
Support or comment on the current nominations, or nominate an article for collaboration.
Current nominations:

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Miraculousmedalapparition.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Miraculousmedalapparition.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I notice you uploaded Image:InfantBaptism.jpg. Can you please make all your future uploads (except fair use ones, that is) to Wikimedia Commons. If you'd like, you could also move some of your old photos there as well. I see there are quite a lot of them, but if you did one every now and again you could certainly pull it off. Richard001 (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won't be moving the old ones. I just don't have time for much Wikipedia editing work anymore. I'll try to keep your suggestion in mind, however, when I take a picture of something new I think may be a good contribution to an article. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 02:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Christianity

Hello MamaGeek!

You are cordially invited to participate in WikiProject Christianity

The goal of WikiProject Christianity is to improve the quality and quantity of information about Christianity available on Wikipedia. WP:X as a group does not prefer any particular tradition or denominination of Christianity, but prefers that all Christian traditions are fairly and accurately represented.

You are receiving this invitation because you are a member of one of the related Christianity Projects and I thought that you might be interested in this project also - Tinucherian (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution by uploading the image Ice storm. Your test worked, and the image that you uploaded has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been editing Wikipedia for a long time, and my edits were in good faith. This is not the right message to leave here, as the image is completely appropriate, has the proper licensing, and is not subject to deletion. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:IfIPayTheeNotInGold BookCover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:IfIPayTheeNotInGold BookCover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OakLeafSnowman.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:OakLeafSnowman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 16:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From your user page

Can I use your image of the John A Roebling Bridge in a newspaper ad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.93.123 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 August 2009

I don't know. I released it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, so I guess you should read that, and you'll know what you can do with it. MamaGeek ^{(talk/contrib)} 11:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:Niagara Rainbowbridge2006 edit1.jpg

File:Niagara Rainbowbridge2006 edit1.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Niagara Rainbowbridge2006 edit1.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Niagara Rainbowbridge2006 edit1.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CornKernelBox.jpg is now available as Commons:File:CornKernelBox.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DigitalScrapbookPage.jpg is now available as Commons:File:DigitalScrapbookPage.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:2006Boston010.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2006Boston010.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Possibly unfree File:FallsChurchVehicle.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FallsChurchVehicle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:FreeStamp.jpg listed for deletion on Wikimedia Commons

An image or media file you uploaded or altered, FreeStamp.jpg, has been listed at Commons Deletion requests.

You can read and participate in the deletion discussion if you are interested or do not wish the file to be deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC) --Stefan2 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for Wikipedia Freeware Picture

Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HeliconiusDorisLinnaeus.jpg). I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely, Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: duanerhurst@freeenglishsite.com --75.169.27.34 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feast day listed at Redirects for discussion

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints --Jayarathina (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2013 (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) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:CatholicCOTW go vote

Template:CatholicCOTW go vote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]