User talk:Aroniel2

Welcome!
Hello, Aroniel2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Catechism of the Catholic Church
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Onel5969 (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello User Aroniel2, and thank again for your last contribution. Unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I don't think that adding a reference to that other book was appropriate. If you feel that you addition was opportune, I invite you to open a new section in the talk page of Catechism of the Catholic Church and to explain why the edit would be opportune, to reach consensus with the contribution of other editors. Thank you! LowLevel73(talk) 16:45, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Compendium Traditional Catechism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Compendium Traditional Catechism 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 Articles for deletion/Compendium Traditional Catechism 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 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. LowLevel73(talk) 17:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello. I really dont need "help". I am just trying to save my addition to be Deleted!! That is all. I dont want it deleted! Thanks!!--Aroniel2 (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Participating at the discussion about "Compendium Traditional Catechism"
Hello User:Aroniel2, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. I have seen that you have removed, I assume accidentally, the introduction text for the "Article for Deletion" page dedicated to "Compendium Traditional Catechism" and a few links to related pages. Since that's a discussion page and it needs to record the opinions of all the editors who will decide to participate, I have reverted your edit.

Your opinion about the notability of the book is very well welcomed and you should add it to the page paying attention not to delete any other text. In Wikipedia, deciding whether a topic is notable enough to deserve an article is a collaborative process, not something up to a single editor. Since you are a new user, I invite you to read how to contribute to a deletion discussion and to give a look at this unrelated AfD discussion page, just to see how a discussion for deletion usually works and how editors provide their opinions.

I've left in this pages a welcome box that contains links to some of the main guidelines of the project. Thanks again for your contributions! LowLevel73(talk) 17:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WHY you nominated my addition for deletion?? Why you want to Delete my only addition?? (The only who will benefit from deleting my addition will be NOT God.--Aroniel2 (talk) 17:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Aroniel2, don't worry, several articles are nominated every day for deletion and this is just a common procedure that Wikipedia follows to guarantee that the articles of the encyclopedia are dedicated to notable topics. A nomination does not mean that the article will be deleted. If the topic will be considered notable by the editors who will contribute to the discussion, the article will be kept. Please, note also that in Wikipedia the notability of a topic is not established by a single user, but by Wikipedia's guidelines about notability and, in this case, also by Notability of books. Thanks! LowLevel73(talk) 17:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm Zfish118. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Catechism of the Catholic Church without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! --Zfish118 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Catechism of the Catholic Church with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. &mdash;  MusikAnimal talk 18:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Catechism of the Catholic Church.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 21:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church


A tag has been placed on Traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate,. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ► LowLevel (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

April 2015
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Finland, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You have once again started marking major edits as minor. Please fix this. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

January 2018
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Catechism of the Catholic Church 2105 (January 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Aroniel2/sandbox/Catechism of the Catholic Church 2105 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to User:Aroniel2/sandbox/Catechism of the Catholic Church 2105, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and save.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Aroniel2/sandbox/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church_2105 Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theroadislong&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User:Aroniel2/sandbox/Catechism_of_the_Catholic_Church_2105 reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

National Catholicism
Please do not add or change content, as you did at National Catholicism, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to National Catholicism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church at the official Web Page of the Vatican is a HIGHLY HGHLY reliable source. The documents that justify political Catholicism of the XIX Century are summarized in the 2105 of the Catechism, as universally recognized by Catholic Theologians in Spain and the whole world.

https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/12/religious-freedom-innovation-and-development

https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=National%20Catholicism&item_type=topic

http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=National-Catholicism

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1347670bdc4.html?eng=y&refresh_ce

Answer: If you take 20 second of your time and actually read the 2105, you will see it all about politics. It is the justification of the Catholic State, or the State with the Catholic religion as the official religion of the state. This fact is not my theory. This fact is universally accepted by Theologians all around the world.

Not that matters as you might not be Catholic, but the 2105 specifically cites Pope Leo XIII Immortale Dei and Pope Pius XI, Quas primas, the most political documents of the XIX Century where specifically the Popes call for the Catholic Religion to be the official Religion of the State, including of course, Spain. Furthermore, the 2105 also cites the most political document of the Second Vatican Council, APOSTOLICAM ACTUOSITATEM, where the Council specifically calls in its number 7, for Catholics to take control of the Politics of the state and, like in Franco s times, of Law, Arts, Structures of Society, Economy, etc, etc. and this is not my theory, this is Universally accepted by thousands and thousands and thousands of bishops, priest, theologians all around the world. If you take 40 seconds to read the 2105 of the Catechism you can see it by yourself. If you can read Cardinal Avery Dulles articles, he, one of the most famous Catholic Theologians and SMEs in the world, will explain this in a wonderful way.

If you can read Spanish let me know and I will send you the Chapter of the book of bishop Fernando Rifan from Brazil where he also, like Cardinal Dulles, explains all this in a wonderful fashion. He is a highly respected and famous Catholic bishop and Theologian and friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

As the introduction of Pope John Paul II in the Catechism, the 1992 work is the Definitive Doctrine of the Church, with full authority. That does not means that new Dogmas can be defined in the Future, but that all that is on the Catechism will stay forever and ever as the official Catholic teachings. The Catholic Church can develop new doctrines, but never Contradict itself or contradict old doctrines. All that it is in the 1992 remains today in 2018 the official doctrine of the Church. The point that the Catholic Church can never change in a contradictory way its doctrine is basic to Catholic Theology. It can add new things, it can never change old doctrines The Church changes in Discipline, Rules, Canon Law, Liturgy and Rites etc, etc, but never on its doctrines. The Baltimore Catechism explains this very well the same as the Catholic Encyclopedia:

-- The Baltimore Catechism (1891): 126. Our Lord left His Church FREE to make certain laws, just as they would be needed. It has ALWAYS exercised this power, and made laws to suit the "CIRCUMSTANCES OF PLACE OR TIMES. Even now it does AWAY with some of its OLD laws that are NO longer useful, and makes NEW ones that are more necessary. But the doctrines, the truths of faith or morals, the things we must believe and do to save our souls, it never changes and never can change: it may regulate some things in the application of the divine laws, but the laws themselves can never change in substance. (Nihil Obstat: D. J. McMahon Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: *Michael Augustine, Archbishop of New York New York, September 5, 1891)

--Catholic Encyclopedia (1917): "... The Church can never undergo any constitutional change which will make it, as a social organism, something different from what it was originally. It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals; nor can it ever lose the Apostolic hierarchy, or the sacraments through which Christ communicates grace to men...” (Thurston, H. (1908). In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 8, 2018 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm. Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.) Aroniel2 (talk) 11:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of the 2105 of the Catholic Catechism,

In Spanish, explanation that the 2105 is the fundamental doctrinal base and Key Element to understand Political Catholicism in all its forms (Absolute Monarchy, Franco s National Catholicism, Cristeros from Mexico, today s Hungarian Constitution, Catholic Party of Bayern, Germany, etc, etc, etc.) Bishop Fernando Rifan explain with detail how all the Political Doctrine of the Church is contained and summarized in the 2105 of the Catechism:

Cuando el Concilio afirma que deja «íntegra la doctrina tradicional católica acerca del deber moral de los hombres y de las sociedades para con la verdadera religión y la única Iglesia de Cristo» (DH 1), está declarando que continúan en vigor los principios que enseñan las encíclicas Mirari Vos (Gregorio XVI), Quanta Cura (Pío IX),Mortalium Animos, Quas Primas (Pío XI) y la totalidad de la enseñanza tradicional sobre el reinado social de Cristo Rey.

....El Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica,otro acto del Magisterio, promulgado por el Papa Juan Pablo II, «en virtud de la autoridad apostólica» por la Constitución Apostólica Fidei Depositum, explica con claridad en qué sentido la Iglesia comprende la libertad...El deber de rendir a Dios un culto auténtico corresponde al hombre individual y socialmente considerado. Esa es “la doctrina tradicional católica sobre el deber moral de los hombres y de las sociedades respecto a la religión verdadera y a la única Iglesia de Cristo” (DH 1). Al evangelizar sin cesar a los hombres, la Iglesia trabaja para que puedan “informar con el espíritu cristiano el pensamiento y las costumbres, las leyes y las estructuras de la comunidad en la que cada uno vive”(AA 13). Deber social de los cristianos es respetar y suscitar en cada hombre el amor de la verdad y del bien. Les exige dar a conocer el culto de la única verdadera religión, que subsiste en la Iglesia católica y apostólica (cf. DH 1). Los cristianos son llamados a ser la luz del mundo (cf. AA 13). La Iglesia manifiesta así la realeza de Cristo sobre toda la creación y, en particular, sobre las sociedades humanas (cf. León XIII, enc. Immortale Dei; Pío XI, enc. Quas primas, sobre Cristo Rey)» (CEC 2104-2105). (Bishop Fernando Rifan, Tradicion y el Magisterio Viviente de la Iglesia, Chapter 7, Fundación GRATIS DATE Apartado 2154 - 31080 Pamplona, España ISBN 84-87903-86-X, DL NA 822-2012, Gráficas Lizarra, S.L., Ctra. de Tafalla km. 1 - 31132 Villatuerta, Navarra. WEB Site: http://www.gratisdate.org/archivos/pdf/54.pdf

ANSWER; Read Cardinal Dulles when you have time. But please read the 2105 of the Catechism as it will only take you 30 seconds and it is 100% Self Explanatory: The official Doctrine of the Church is that the State must be a Catholic State, 100% what Franco did in Spain verbatimAroniel2 (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The material was copied directly from another website, and thus was a copyright violation. Please don't add copyright material to this wiki. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ANSWER: No the Material was not copied from another web site. To the contrary, AFTER I edited the Wikipedia page, someoneelse copied the Wikipedia page and pasted into his or her own web page. Someone copied Wikipedia content and used in their own page. The edit is 100% original from me. People copies Wikipedia and post them in other pages. That is what this person did. Aroniel2 (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the content you added was copied from http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm, a copyright web page. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

ANSWER: That is not material, that is a REFERENCE. I state that the 2105 of the Catechism includes the base of National Catholicim, as a Reference to back my claim I CITE the Catechism as in the Vatican Web page, but ONLY as Reference and ONLY in discussion page. I did NOT include it in my original edit of the LIVE, actual National Catholicism Wiki Page. There is only a Web address as REFERENCE.Aroniel2 (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please note...
...that new comments on talk pages go at the  bottom  of the page, not at the top, and that talk page comments should be "signed" by adding 4 tildes (i.e. ~ ) to the end of the comment. The system will see these and insert a date/time stamp that includes your account name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The comments you added to the top of my talk page can be found at User talk:Beyond My Ken, along with my responses and the responses of other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop spamming 2105
You seem to be intent upon adding references to #2105 of the Catholic Catechism to a variety of articles. Such a reference is not necessarily appropriate for every article, and your adding it appears to be part of your personal point of view. Please stop. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Answer: I am begging you to read the material I sent you where Cardinal Avery Dulles, Bishop Fernando Rifan, etc explain very clear is not MY personal view point but the official doctrine of the church. Furthermore, the FACT that the document Quas Primas is actually cited in the 2105 is not anyone s opinion. It is a fact like 2 + 2 = 4. By going to the Catechism 2105 and read the footnote reference there anyone can see it. The FACT that the document IMMORTALE DEI is actually cited as a matter of FACT in the 2105 of the Catechism is not anyone s opinion, it is a FACT like 2 +2 = 4.

The key importance of 2105 is that is the base key, fundamental to understand the Political Catholicism, as Bishop Rifan and Cardinal Dulles, SME s in the subject explain. It is the base to understand terms such as the Cristeros of Mexico, National Catholicism of Franco, Political Catholicism, doctrine of separation of Church and State, the current Constitution of Hungary, Malta and Costa Rica, etc, etc. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read Bishop Rifan and you will see that one of the worlds most authoritavie persons in the Church and a SME explains this that I am telling you.

Bishop Rifan explains in his book the importance of 2105: ¨Bishop Fernando Rifan explain with detail how all the Political Doctrine of the Church is contained and summarized in the 2105 of the Catechism:

Cuando el Concilio afirma que deja «íntegra la doctrina tradicional católica acerca del deber moral de los hombres y de las sociedades para con la verdadera religión y la única Iglesia de Cristo» (DH 1), está declarando que continúan en vigor los principios que enseñan las encíclicas Mirari Vos (Gregorio XVI), Quanta Cura (Pío IX),Mortalium Animos, Quas Primas (Pío XI) y la totalidad de la enseñanza tradicional sobre el reinado social de Cristo Rey.

....El Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica,otro acto del Magisterio, promulgado por el Papa Juan Pablo II, «en virtud de la autoridad apostólica» por la Constitución Apostólica Fidei Depositum, explica con claridad en qué sentido la Iglesia comprende la libertad...El deber de rendir a Dios un culto auténtico corresponde al hombre individual y socialmente considerado. Esa es “la doctrina tradicional católica sobre el deber moral de los hombres y de las sociedades respecto a la religión verdadera y a la única Iglesia de Cristo” (DH 1). Al evangelizar sin cesar a los hombres, la Iglesia trabaja para que puedan “informar con el espíritu cristiano el pensamiento y las costumbres, las leyes y las estructuras de la comunidad en la que cada uno vive”(AA 13). Deber social de los cristianos es respetar y suscitar en cada hombre el amor de la verdad y del bien. Les exige dar a conocer el culto de la única verdadera religión, que subsiste en la Iglesia católica y apostólica (cf. DH 1). Los cristianos son llamados a ser la luz del mundo (cf. AA 13). La Iglesia manifiesta así la realeza de Cristo sobre toda la creación y, en particular, sobre las sociedades humanas (cf. León XIII, enc. Immortale Dei; Pío XI, enc. Quas primas, sobre Cristo Rey)» (CEC 2104-2105). (Bishop Fernando Rifan, Tradicion y el Magisterio Viviente de la Iglesia, Chapter 7, Fundación GRATIS DATE Apartado 2154 - 31080 Pamplona, España ISBN 84-87903-86-X, DL NA 822-2012, Gráficas Lizarra, S.L., Ctra. de Tafalla km. 1 - 31132 Villatuerta, Navarra. WEB Site: http://www.gratisdate.org/archivos/pdf/54.pdf Aroniel2 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Please read our essay about righting great wrongs. Thanks. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Do not worry, the fact that Quas Primas is cited in the 2105 is 100% Verificable! Just to go to the official Web Site of the Vatican (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm), to the Catechism 2105 and then to the Reference number 33. In that reference you will see this ¨33 Cf. AA 13; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei 3,17; Pius XI, Quas primas 8,20.¨ So any one can verify it! Thanks a lot! Aroniel2 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi, I've blocked you indefinitely due to your egregious POV editing. Regards, S warm   ♠  20:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

YOU say is my point of view, Cardnal Dulles says it is official Catholic Doctrine. Bishop Rifan says it is official doctrine of the Church. The FACT that both Quas Primas is cited in the 2105 is a Fact that anyone can verify in 20 second. The Fact that 2105 cites the document Immortale Dei is a fact that anyone can very with a 20 second visit to the official page. Sorry, but between Cardinal Dulles and Bishop Rifan and you, you lose. I will ask Bishop Rifan himself (a good friend of mine b the way!) to do the same edit that I did. As recognized world SME and leader in the hierarchy of the Church, blocking his Edits or even Reverting them, will only demonstrate ideological intolerance and bias, in addition to total ignorance of the Catholic Doctrine.Aroniel2 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Post block note
I have exchanged several emails with this user since the block. I have asked for the user's assent to copy the exchange on-wiki; they have not responded to that request, so I will summarize. I repeatedly explained to this user that they were blocked for inserting antisemitic material to the project; namely, they changed the POV of an article using a self-acknowledged historical revisionist, Nazi-sympathizing blog as a reliable source. They speculated basically that I was an angry, leftist, millennial who was "engaging in the promotion of Cultural Marxism" and that the problem was that an article that had no obvious ties to the offensive views of the writer or blog had been deemed "heretical" by me. They did not ever acknowledge that there was a legitimate problem using the blog as a source, but repeatedly speculated that I was a young ideological activist, masquerading as an administrator. They also repeatedly stated details about their personal life, which, IMO, boiled down to "I am very important". Again, they never conceded the fact that using the obviously-racist blog was a problem. I told them numerous times that if they felt the block was unfair, they had the right to appeal the block. They declined, saying that they will instead get a new IP address and engage in sock puppetry to circumvent the block and that I would see them again, but would not be able to prove a connection. Will provide the emails to corroborate as is necessary. S warm  ♠  17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but what are you talking about me not answering you? I sent you an answer today (from today s answer is where you came with the ¨heretical¨ web site reference.)Aroniel2 (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You did not respond to my request to copy the emails here, so I assumed that meant you did not want me doing so. S warm   ♠  18:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Aroniel2/sandbox/Catechism of the Catholic Church 2105


Hello, Aroniel2. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/Catechism of the Catholic Church 2105".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Sam Sailor 04:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

October 2020
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gavin McInnes. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 02:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   03:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

No disruptive and not my opinion but FACTS: 1) He is married to a Native American woman (fact) 2) Left wing activists consider the Proud Boys as neofacist and racist (fact). No opinion nor my views but facts.
 * I'm afraid the existing consensus and reliable sources do not agree with you. I'd suggest that you read the original research and reliable sources policies, and possibly this essay about verifiability on Wikipedia before you make any more edits to contentious articles. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying that he is not married to a Native American woman?? Are you saying that there are left wing actvist groups that dont consider the Proud Boys to be neofacist? Please let me know the ethnicity of his wife. Please mention one left wing activist group that does not consider the Proud Boys a neofacist group. Thank you
 * was pretty gracious in unblocking you for POV editing, on the basis that you weren't intending to POV edit but rather had an academic intent. This isn't academic. Please cease making those kind of edits. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 04:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please confirm the ethnicity of his wife. (If she is not Native American then I beg pardon). Please confirm if left wing activist groups consider or not the Proud Boys to be neofascist (if left wing groups do not consider them neofascist then I apologize and beg your pardon). (In the IC we call those key judgements, and I edited the 2009 US Army Open Source Intelligence Course)
 * We're not here to debate the facts. You really do need to start using citations and not tagging everything with "left wing activists consider". Yes, a number of left-wing groups do consider Proud Boys to be neofascist, but so does Washington Post, New York Times, ABC News, SBS News, and a bunch of academic journals. Continuing to add material without citations as well as violating the neutrality policy may result in you being reblocked. Also, it would be helpful if you started signing your comments with . ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 05:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

If there are center left media that consider the group neofascist that does not against the facts that left wing political groups still do the same. Therefore the statement or analytical judgment is true. (John says that the car is blue, regardless if Mark and Mary also say it. Therefore, John says the car is blue). Also his wife is Native American. If there is evidence she is not, then I apologize. (But I need to see the evidence first) (Please familiarize yourself with the term IYI from the great matemathician and philosopher Nassim Taleb as it is the best description of the media and academia today). Thank you
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. Adding qualifiers like that violated neutrality and is nothing but [{WP:WEASEL|weaseling]] in order to try and remove content you appear to disagree with. There's no need to say that John specifically says the car is blue, if the car is just bloody blue and there is agreement that the car is blue. Also, the burden is on you to provide evidence for your claims. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 11:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Plunge: The car is bloody blue according to YOU and according to SOME. According to OTHERS the car is NOT blue. If the car is Blue or NOT it is an INTERPRETATION issue open to SUBJECTIVE opinion. To left wing activists, the IYI press, left wing academia it is Blue. To conservative groups, center right groups, conservative media and to the own members it is not. OPEN TO INTERPRETATION.

Wittenstein said that there is no Truth outside of Math precisely for this reason. There is no question that 2+2= 4. If the Proud Boys are NEOFACIST is an OPEN QUESTION. The fact that the founder of the group is CATHOLIC, married to the NATIVE AMERICAN woman, father of 3 mixed race children and the FACT that the current leader of the groups is a BLACK CUBAN, and the fact that there are hundreds of members of the group that are Black or mixed race, does not support the ¨NEOFASCIST¨ label as a FACT. It supports it as an OPINION:

For some people it is Neofascist

For some people it is Not

If Wikepedia at institutional level, OFFICIALLY defines the Group as NEOFASCIST (not at an opinion but as a FACT like Paris is the Capital of France or Napoleon was defeated in 1812, then Wikipedia credibility suffers because it STOP being a NEUTRAL and FACTUAL source. It becomes a PARTIIST IDEOLOGICAL source, subject to the PERSONAL ideological subjective worldview of the Senior Editors.

That is why serious intelligence reports and journalists always include key words such as ¨ALLEGEDLY¨ or ¨ACCORDING TO X¨. In that way the media mantains its neutrality and credibility.

The day the media begins to place as FACT the opinions of SOME, that they the credibility and neutrality of the platform goes to TRASH.

Dates, chemical formulas, mathematical formulas, past tense verbs, etc, etc can be depicted as FACTS not open to question nor interpretation.

Definitions, Adjectives, narratives, etc, etc, are ALL open to Interpretation and opinion.

You cannot write STALIN WAS EVIL. You must write in order to keep your credibility ¨According to most historians and neutral observers Stalin was evil¨

Not following these simple rules will trash your credibility and catalog you as an IDEOLOGICAL activist (nothing to do with serious intelligence analyst, journalist, historians, FACT finders, academics). In this case many readers might take you personally as a Sympathizer of left wing political causes.

CONCLUSION: Use Key words such as ¨ALLEGEDLY¨ or ¨ACCORDING TO X group¨ this thing is BLUE. That will protect your Credibility, Neutrality and will shield you from the assumption that you are not a Neutral Objective Fact finder but an Ideological Activist. Take it from me, described by SES as one of the best ever DIA Strategic level intelligence analyst of the Agency. Aroniel2 (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Question: Can I use another user name and IP adress o continue doing edits? Please let me know. Thank you!Aroniel2 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 14:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you do not make similar article edits again without consensus, and that your arguments for your edits are based on what reliable sources say about the subject. Doug Weller talk 14:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that Administrator follow simple rules to protect Wikepdia neutrality as objective source. Otherwise it will or might become an ideological activist source and not a serious credible one.

Dates, chemical formulas, mathematical formulas, past tense verbs, etc, etc can be depicted as FACTS not open to question nor interpretation.

Definitions, Adjectives, narratives, etc, etc, are ALL open to Interpretation and opinion.

You cannot write STALIN WAS EVIL. You must write in order to keep your credibility ¨According to most historians and neutral observers Stalin was evil¨

Not following these simple rules will trash your credibility and catalog you as an IDEOLOGICAL activist (nothing to do with serious intelligence analyst, journalist, historians, FACT finders, academics). In this case many readers might take you personally as a Sympathizer of left wing political causes.

CONCLUSION: Use Key words such as ¨ALLEGEDLY¨ or ¨ACCORDING TO X group¨ this thing is BLUE. That will protect your Credibility, Neutrality and will shield you from the assumption that you are not a Neutral Objective Fact finder but an Ideological Activist. Take it from me, described by SES as one of the best ever DIA Strategic level intelligence analyst of the Agency. Aroniel2 (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 04:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that Administrator follow simple rules to protect Wikepdia neutrality as objective source. Otherwise it will or might become an ideological activist source and not a serious credible one.

Dates, chemical formulas, mathematical formulas, past tense verbs, etc, etc can be depicted as FACTS not open to question nor interpretation.

Definitions, Adjectives, narratives, etc, etc, are ALL open to Interpretation and opinion.

You cannot write STALIN WAS EVIL. You must write in order to keep your credibility ¨According to most historians and neutral observers Stalin was evil¨

Not following these simple rules will trash your credibility and catalog you as an IDEOLOGICAL activist (nothing to do with serious intelligence analyst, journalist, historians, FACT finders, academics). In this case many readers might take you personally as a Sympathizer of left wing political causes.

CONCLUSION: Use Key words such as ¨ALLEGEDLY¨ or ¨ACCORDING TO X group¨ this thing is BLUE. That will protect your Credibility, Neutrality and will shield you from the assumption that you are not a Neutral Objective Fact finder but an Ideological Activist. Take it from me, described by SES as one of the best ever DIA Strategic level intelligence analyst of the Agency.Aroniel2 (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Going by your edits to articles, and especially by your recent comments on this talkpage and at User talk:MelbourneStar, you either don't understand Wikipedia's principles or you simply don't want to hear about them. Bishonen &#124; tålk 09:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC).



Warning: you will lose talkpage access this way
This is the only warning you will get before I turn off your access to editing this page: stop using it as a blog or soapbox. Either appeal the block per the appeal instructions, or stop talking. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC).
 * I am letting you know that Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia thinks about Wikipedia today. I will not appeal anything. I will get a new username and new IP. Thank youAroniel2 (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A threat to sock is all you needed. Talkpage access revoked, and I've removed your post-block opinions filling this page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC).

October 2020
<div class="user-block" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

E-mail permission revoked
Apparently you believe all the stuff I turned off your talkpage access for, including threats to use sockpuppets, will be more acceptable in the form of e-mails to me. No, that's not the case. I have turned off your access to the Wikipedia e-mail system. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC).