User talk:MainBody

February 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=645572702 your edit] to Transubstantiation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Florence and the "libellus (booklet)" of Mark of Ephesus, held for a double moment of consecration at the words "This is my body/blood" and the epiclesis. Despite the fact that this was a normative
 * of the sacramental union" (not exactly the consubstantiation, as is often claimed) {{cite web |url=https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&amp;cuTopic_topicID=

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

userboxen
You have a number of good userboxes. Consider categorizing them so they can be found more easily by others. (Specifically, Category:Christian user templates.) ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Lutheranism into Salvation in Christianity. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please be more careful when reverting, fixing broken reverts is very difficult
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Ultra-high-definition television. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's [ page history] to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 18:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sola fide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Italian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sola_fide check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sola_fide?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Council of Carthage edit manipulation by a catholic zealot
Hi, I write to you in inform you that a guy I was debating with was manipulating and removing your edits on this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Councils_of_Carthage

Based on ideological agenda.

Can you check it out? WCyborg (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Worth noting that User:DeusImperator all along has never provided any solid evidences that there's any "mistranslation" of the Latin texts. Funny. - MainBody (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Councils_of_Carthage. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. ''It appears the cited material has nothing to do with the section within the page you edited. Your edit constituted vandalism by removing primary source edit. I am issuing this as a caution as you might not be aware of this. Also, as a favour to you, a hint, the source you have used references a later council and not the one you are attempting to edit. You can find the primary source for that here http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm  I would suggest you read the primary source and edit the relevant entry. Good luck with your edits. '' DeusImperator (talk) 09:23, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Yawn.

I have several fundamental questions for you, on the Council of Carthage talkpage. - MainBody (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Councils_of_Carthage. ''This is the final warning being issued to you. Do not remove primary source references material. You may face sanctions should you persist.'' DeusImperator (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Save your breath, Userdeusimperator. No one's interested in your sophomoric statement, and you've long been exposed vandalising wikipedia and refusing to stick to the basic rules in Wikipedia Layout Manual. Learn to read.

Be reminded that you're still unable to identify what "primary sources" I have ever removed. All my edits are here for editors/administrators' review. Please feel free.

Have a nice day. - MainBody (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, I fully notice that userdeusimperator has received eventually a warning issued by the arbitrating administrator(s). :) MainBody (talk)

Criticism of the Catholic Church
Hi, thought you might be interested to weigh in on the Talk page at Criticism of the Catholic Church over an ongoing issue there.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Please be more careful in ticking the Minor edits tick box.
Help:Minor edit says that 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". You're modifying content and calling those edits minor. Doug Weller talk 09:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert
Kautilya3 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Simla Convention; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

May 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Tibetan sovereignty debate. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Hi MainBody! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Simla Convention several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Simla Convention did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Simla Convention shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions reminder
You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Daniel Case (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)