Help needed in LatinEdit

Hello! I would need your help in Latin for some articles I am trying to turn into Good Articles.
1) Could you translate the following as faithfully as possible: "Novit beatitudo vestra cui se totamque ecclesiam discrimini commiserit Sixtus V. dum juxta propriae doctrinae sensus sacrorum bibliorum emendationem aggressus est; nec satis scio an gravius unquam periculum occurrerit"
2) I tried to summarise the long quotation in Latin in 192-193 by writing: "The first comittee was created by Gregory XIV on 7 February 1591. This commitee was presided by M. A. Colonna[10][11] and comprised of six other cardinals working on the revision; in this committee Bellarmin was, along with 10 other people, an advisor for the revision.[12]" Is it a faithful summary? Is there important details I missed, e.g. the position of the people (editor or advisor)?
3) I tried to summarise the long quotation in Latin in pp. 194-195 by writing: "This commitee was composed of 9 people of which M. A. Colonna, Antonius Agellius, Bellarmine, Petrus Morinus, Frederico Borromeo, Lelio Landi, and A. Rocca." Is it a faithful summary? Is there important details I missed, e.g. the position of the people (editor or advisor)?
Thanks in advance! Veverve (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. The article now says: "The fourth commission was created by Gregory XIV on 7 February 1591. It was presided over by M. A. Colonna[8][9] and comprised six other cardinals working on the revision. Ten other people were part of the commission as advisors, including Robert Bellarmine.[7]"; and concerning the second commission: "Two people were members of this commission: M. A. Colonna, its president,[8][12] and William Allen. This commission also comprised eight other people as advisors: Bartholomew Miranda, Andrea Salvener, Antonius Agellius, Robert Bellarmine, Bartholomew Valverde, Lelio Landi, Petrus Morinus, and Angelo Rocca.[12]" Could you check if I got things right? Veverve (talk) 09:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC - scope and title for the American Revolutionary War articleEdit

I am forwarding this RfC notice to you, along with the ongoing Discussion Summary Chart because you are listed as a History Project member interested in American history. The RfC and discussion is found at Talk:American Revolutionary War. Please feel free to delete this notice if it does not fit your current interests. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

 

American Revolutionary War, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RFC for value. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Which title best defines the SCOPE for the American Revolutionary War?
discussion summarized by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
A. "American Revolutionary War” B. "War of the American Revolution"
continuity - used at this WP article and sister articles for 19 years
- scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America
- participants British & US Congress with respective allies, auxiliaries & combatants
- war aims
-- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system
-- US: independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure
- results - US independence & republic; Britain the biggest US trade partner & finances US expanding business & Treasury
- reliable scholarly reference Britannica for the general reader
- prominent adherents - all 15 history Pulitzer winner scholars on the topic
modern update - uses 'vast majority of sources' found in a browser search
- scope - British-American insurrection in continental North America, spread to Anglo-Bourbon (Fr.&Sp.) War-across worldwide empires, Fourth Anglo-Dutch War-North Atlantic, Second Mysore War-Indian subcontinent & Ocean
- participants British & US Congress, France, Spain, Dutch Republic, Kingdom of Mysore
- war aims
-- Brit: maintain First British Empire with mercantile system
-- US independence, British evacuation, territory to Mississippi-navigation, Newfoundland-fish & cure
-- Bourbons: Gibraltar, Jamaica, Majorca, expand Gambia trade, expand India trade
-- Dutch - free trade with North America & Caribbean
-- Mysore wider east-Indian sub-continent sphere of influenced
results - Second British Empire, Spanish Majorca, French Gambia, further decline of Dutch Republic
- reliable scholarly reference [world military dictionary] for the military specialist
- prominent adherents - Michael Clodfelter, more to follow

Nomination of Bigamy (canon law) for deletionEdit

 
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bigamy (canon law) 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/Bigamy_(canon law) 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.

Veverve (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Jurisprudence of canon law has been nominated for renamingEdit

 

Category:Jurisprudence of canon law has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Veverve (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC)