User talk:Rafaelosornio

Talk page thread regarding you recent "Protestant" Christian edits
Hello, I had some concerns about recent edits you've made, as you've somewhat indiscriminately (it appears) added the qualifier "Protestant" multiple times in some articles, which in some cases is altering quoted material or categories. Please feel free to discuss your rationale at the talk pg. thread I started at WikiProject Christianity, here Thanks. Roberticus (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not specify what kind of Christian is the person in question, and creates confusion among people. You should know that the term "Christian" refers not only to Protestants as the articles want us to believe but also Catholic Christians for example.Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Do not worry about the broken categories, they will soon be arranged. I've done extensive research to corroborate what person is Catholic Christian or Protestant Christian, so do not worry, I also will add the Catholic word before the word Christian if required.Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kris Allen. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop adding the word "Protestant" in - multiple editors have pointed out that it's not appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jeremy Affeldt. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I added Christhian word after Catholic too, as Catholics are also Christians.Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * To clarify with the previous warning, you added the word "Protestant" so that the sentence reads "He writes a weekly blog about his Protestant Christian faith". Well, he is writing about his Christian faith, not necessarily his Protestantism in particular. In any case, you should discuss your proposed changes and obtain consensus before adding material back in that has previously been reverted. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The best option is changing the word "Christian" (when it referes a Christian Protestant) by the word "Protestant" because saying "Protestant Christian" is redundant. In this case, the word "Catholic" is correct, as well as the word "Protestant". Remember: Catholics and Protestants are Christians.Rafaelosornio (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Benny Hinn
Please tell me how you know that no Catholic has criticised Hinn, and why it is important to leave them out in this way. Do realise that as Christians includes Catholics if a Christian of any stripe criticises him they are included. If any branch of Christianity has not criticized him then the others have, so the general term is more valid. Britmax (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your comment, articles must be neutral, it seems that as a Protestant Christian that you are, you want to impose your faith.Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm an atheist, mate. If the article just claims that Protestants have criticised him it leaves out the possibility that a Catholic has. If it just says Christians then the article is right if a Christian of any shade has criticised him. Britmax (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Benny Hinn. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Harold Camping. Your edits have been reverted or removed. Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. StAnselm (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

December 2014
I have removed the prod tag from Veronica Lueken, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks!

The Veronica Luieken Article should be kept and referenced with the Steely Dan Number: The Boston Rag where Lady Bayside is name checked. The freaks were jealous of the halucinations Veronica experienced and were curious about the medicines she was taking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.113.110 (talk) 01:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Rapture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We dont care what your or my reading and interpretation of the Bible says. We present what the reliable sources say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, What your Presbyterian Dictionary page 262 says is more reliable than the Bible. Ok, if you say it. I can quote a Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Pentecostal or Adventist Dictionary and it will say another different concept about Rapture.Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * yes, what my dictionary says on page 262 is more reliable that what you say the bible says/means. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You changed the meaning, but now the article definition is right. Indeed, I have read The Westminster Dictionary on page 261 and it says:


 * "(Lat. raptus "carried off") An expression of intense religious exprience. Also in Premillennialism the view that when Christ returns to the Earth, BELIEVERS (not the living) will be raised from the earth...."


 * IT SAYS "BELIEVERS" NOT "THE LIVING". Now the Dictionary and the article have meaning.

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited James, brother of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hegesippus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you

Brother of Jesus
Hi.. I notice that you removed some words in your edit. I can understand your reason and agree with you. However, I added those words to assert that John J. Rousseau and Rami Arav constructed the diagram based on their claim (the deleted words), since I read that in the source cited:. And then I added the next sentence to neutralize their claim. I look forward to hearing your comments. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed it because if you read Josephus and Eusebius they never said that the "brothers of Jesus" were children of Mary and Joseph. When I see the diagram I can see that they do it according to their own interpretation of the Bible and cited historians to support their diagram even if it is not true because the diagram was made according to the bible more than according to Eusebius(Hegesippus) and Josephus. The following is true:


 * Hegesippus an Josephus said that James the brother of Jesus was head of Jerusalem´s church; that Clopas was brother of Joseph and an uncle of the Lord; Eusebius said that Mary of Clopas was the wife of Clopas, who have a son called Symeon and Eusebius said too that James the brother of the Lord "was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph" but he doesn't mention that James was a son of Mary, the mother of Jesus, James could have been a son of Joseph by a previous marriage. About Judas it is written: "5. The same historian says that there were also others, descended from one of the so-called brothers of the Saviour, whose name was Judas, who, after they had borne testimony before Domitian, as has been already recorded, in behalf of faith in Christ, lived until the same reign. 6. He writes as follows: "They came, therefore, and took the lead of every church as witnesses and as RELATIVES of the Lord. And profound peace being established in every church, they remained until the reign of the Emperor Trajan, and until the above-mentioned Symeon, son of Clopas, an uncle of the Lord, was informed against by the heretics, and was himself in like manner accused for the same cause before the governor Atticus. And after being tortured for many days he suffered martyrdom, and all, including even the proconsul, marveled that, at the age of one hundred and twenty years, he could endure so much. And orders were given that he should be crucified." Judas could have been a son of Joseph too by a previous marriage too or a relative of the Lord. If you see the diagram Josephus is cited once only to say that James was head of Jerusalem´s church. If we can see anyone said that James along to the others brothers of Jesus were children of Mary and Joseph, only of Joseph is said that James was a child of Joseph, but Eusebius doesn't mention of Mary. There are various theories, they theorize that the Jesus' brothers were sons of Mary and Joseph, as others theorize not. Who knows who have the true.


 * Hi again.. I agree with you. :) Just wondering if readers should be aware that the diagram constructed based on their own interpretation regarding Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegesippus writings. I'm afraid if those thing do not explained, some day an editor will add that the diagram "based on Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegesippus", which is incorrect according to your explanation. What do you think? Your thought is appreciated. Thanks, Ign christian (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that the diagram is based on their own interpretation of the bible, in a literal interpretation of the word of "adelphos" as being full brothers of the Lord. They cited Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegesippus to support their diagram but we have to know that they (Rosseau and Arav) put words in Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegesippus that they never said. In conclusion they SUPPOSE that Josephus, Eusebius, and Hegesippus said that "the brothers of Jesus" were child of Jesus and Mary, but they never said that. What we can do? I don't know.

Reference errors on 22 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the James (brother of Jesus) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682309961 your edit] caused a missing references list (help | help with group references) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F682309961%7CJames (brother of Jesus)%5D%5D Ask for help])

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) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Council of Laodicea into Development of the Old Testament canon. 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) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article Choo Thomas but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh 666 07:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop changing the quote at Saint Peter
The source clearly says reliable literary evidence. You are likely to be blocked if you do it again. Also read WP:Primary. Doug Weller talk 21:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

About an earlier edit of yours
This was completely unacceptable.

Should we change the "beliefs" section for Hinduism, Scientology, or other religions' articles to say "facts"...? No? Then "do unto others..." and follow WP:NPOV.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit Summaries
Please provide edit summaries for you edits. Thanks. Editor2020 (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Rapture
Nice catch on the Rapture page! Vyselink (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rafael, The article is not about T-shirts. It's an article about a new tradition involving T-shirts which is developing around the current customs about the Virgin of Guadalupe. I think if you actually read the article, you will find that it indeed appropriate as a Further Read. The author Jim Deutsch is a renowned folklorist, and its publication in the Smithsonian magazine means it has been vetted as important and valid research. Let's talk. charleen smith-riedel

Rafael, we're obviously butting heads on the Rapture page. I'm trying to present a fair case for all viewpoints so others can have accurate information. You have pushed for heavily biased edits; including referring to the Rapture as a cult doctrine and heretical (see your edit from December 4 timestamped 18:50). The Rapture, no matter what side you are on, is well within the bounds of orthodox Christianity and is the majority view in America. Now, to your last edit. . . you reversed my edit because you argue that the Rapture is not interpreted historically. I'm not sure you understand what grammatical-historical interpretation is. Historical simply means that a passage is interpreted in light of its historical context. Certainly, 1 Thessalonians 4:13–17 had a historical context; therefore, it can be interpreted historically. Historical does not mean that it is interpreted in light of church history. My edit was valid and is substantiated by many sources, including one I've included for citation. Please try to be fair and not allow your bias to delegitimize a valid viewpoint. Thank you. Baptistic Dispensationalist (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing the wording to "of certain Christians"? It sounds awkward. The Rapture is taught within Christianity so I'm not sure why you continue to reverse my edit from "within Christianity" which sounds much better. Just because not everyone holds to it within Christianity does not mean it's not a teaching within Christianity. Please stop reversing my edit. Baptistic Dispensationalist (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Stop pasting text from the Catechism.
I'm going through your edits to Trinity right now, and I'm seeing a lot of copying-and-pasting from the Catechism. This is a problem for two reasons:
 * Non-neutral language: I know we're both Trinitarians, but an article should not (in the encyclopedia's voice) say "We believe this." It can say "Trinitarians believe this," but not "we" or "I" or "you."
 * Plagiarism: Did you write the Catechism? I'm guessing not.  Right now, that text is attributed to you as your own words.  The Catechism is not public domain, so I'm going to have to go through, fix things, and WP:REVDEL your edits to the article.

Now, are there any other articles you have copied and pasted text into, be it from the Catechism or any other source?

Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, in many cases, you were replacing material that was already paraphrased with unattributed plagiarism. That's absolutely unacceptable.
 * Other than that, in some cases you were replacing non-primary sources with the Catechism. See WP:PRIMARY for why we usually avoid that.
 * I have also removed the "Apocryphal texts" section from Original sin, as half of it was copied and pasted (not quoted with proper attribution) from the Catholic Encyclopedia, mixed with Bible verses in a way that rather goes against WP:SYNTH.
 * Also, some of your edit summaries at Original Sin are concerning. Your removal of the Swedenborgianism section on the grounds that you're ignorant of them stinks of sectarianism.  It doesn't matter if I would have also removed the section because it's original research, "Who are they?" is not a valid reason to remove something (especially when it's that group's doctrine on the subject in question!).  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Do what you want. About trinity article, yes, you're right about catechism, I only used copy/paste in some editions. About the rest you should and check my editions and keep what you think is convenient because the article has a lot of mistakes. Regards!Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Homosexual fetishism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homosexual fetishism 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/Homosexual fetishism 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. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Read This Please
IAM Not Vandalizing The Page Pope Boniface I and You Think IAM Vandalizing the Page ? And You Don't Know Me if You Continue That, I Will Command Other Editors to Block You! Anonymous Hidden (talk) 08:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop marking all of your edits as minor
See WP:MINOR for what sort of edits are appropriate to mark as minor.

If you're adding or removing material, it's not minor.

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, this edit summary is absolutely wrong. See this and this for the few areas where the two articles overlap.
 * Why do you insist on constantly lying in your edit summaries when removing material about beliefs you personally disagree with for sectarian reasons? Do you want me to start dig through your contributions to show your biased editing, and request that you be topic banned from editing articles relating to religion?  Or are you going to edit by the same neutral standards also expect non-Catholics to abide by?  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * If you continue marking your edits as minor when they're not, I'm blocking you. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * maybe you are right, sorry for removing the Seventh-day Adventists part, I think it was a lot of history not related to the article. But I see maybe it's related.
 * Even though you retracted this, I want to make it clear that the phrasing "Because of the Arian domination" does not appear anywhere in the txt file you linked to. The material in the article is a paraphrase, not copied and pasted.  The links I provided are to duplication detector software, and it shows that the material cited is not copied from the source.  It's not that "maybe" I'm right, you were making objectively false claims.  AGAIN.
 * Between that and you linking to a completely different book from the one cited, you are on very thin ice. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Trinity you included material copied from Nicene Creed. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying within Wikipedia in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Good point
More accurately I should have said he considered the sinlessness of Mary. IC in the current version was barely on the table at this point.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

First Book of Esdras
Rafaelosornio; I have made a number of further edits to the 1 Esdas and 2 Esdras pages; mainly to clarify the points made in cited sources by Bogaert, and Gallagher & Meade'. For the most part, these run counter to arguments that you have put forwards in your recent contributions. Underlying this is my assumption that Bogaert is unchallenged as the current cited authority on the history of the Latin Bible (as recognised in his several contributions to the New Cambridge History of the Bible); and hence his views may safely be stated as the current scholarly consensus in Wikipedia. In part these matters - e.g. whether 1 Esdras was canonical in the West in the fourth century; when the Book of Nehemiah was split off from Ezra, whether Baruch was ever canonical as a distinct book in the early church - represent a private argy-bargy amongst Benedictine abbots; but Bogaert's views emerging as the current orthodoxy does seem to trouble some contributors. Can you propose an alternative citable published authority in current scholarship, supporting your contrary views? regards TomHennell (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * You are abusing, everything you write is copy/paste from what Bogaert wrote. Almost all Esdras articles are copy/paste from Bogaert book and what he thinks about Esdras. Do you have other sources?Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * scarcely copy/paste; Bogaert writes in French of the most part. I am rephrasing his findings into English (as is quite proper in Wikipedia); but also referring to Gallagher and Meade (who themselves mostly transmit Bogaert's  scholarship).  So far as I am aware; all current scholars on the Early Latin versions of the Bible regard Bogaert's opinions as definitive. TomHennell (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * you have done it on 2 Esdras as well; removing the very important point that Ambrose refers to this text as 'the third book of Esdras'.  The cited source (in that case Karina Martin Hogan) is quite clear on the matter; please don't edit the text to change it away from a statement made in the authoritative source. TomHennell (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Padre Pio copyvio claims
What proof can you submit that copyvio has taken place? El_C 19:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello? You can't keep editing the article while this remains outstanding! El_C 19:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe it was my mistake because in the past I was told that I couldn't cite a book many times because it was copyrighted. The user told me that the Catechism was copyrighted and that the article it was about Trinity, not about what Catechism says about Trinity. Finally I accepted I cited it 3 times in all the article and it was my mistake. Sergio Luzzato book section is enourmous. The half of the article is about what Sergio Luzzatto and his book says about Padre Pio, that is why I created a section called "Sergio Luzzatto" in the area of Controversies. The Sergio Luzzatto part was created one month ago by Mr. bobby. Other user told me "I won't accept what one author said in one section". Then I think he should summarize the text. It is enourmous and with repeated texts, misspellings, Luzzatto is with double tt and with references that do not exist. I vote for an article about Luzzatto's book or summarize the enormous content of one single author. Or the article should be changed to the name "What Sergio Luzzatto wrote about Padre Pio". 37 times citing the same book is a lot, that it was the reason I thought it violated copyright. Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, citing the same book repeatedly does not necessarily indicate a copyrights violation. As for the content, I am unfamiliar with it so am unable to comment about it at this time. El_C 23:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Block
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Sorry, but as mentioned above, you cannot continue editing while this matter remains outstanding. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. El_C 23:03, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Your addition to Eucharist in the Catholic Church has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Elizium23 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Sacrament of Penance article
Please go by sound authority when you make changes in church rules in the article Sacrament of Penance. Rather than getting in an editing war I'd like to explain that your preference for "All mortal sins must be confessed and always before receiving Holy Communion" is wrong. There are cases where Catholics may receive Communion with the intention of confessing their mortal sins afterwards, if they have proper contrition. And what you removed there about the time since last confession being "omitted if there are no mortal sins" was a true and helpful statement. Why remove it? Jzsj (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right. Sorry. I had my doubts about venial sins if it is necessary to say the time too.Rafaelosornio (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Lutheran belief
Hi, I saw your revert on Transubstantiation and agree, but I had to address your edit summary. It is a common misconception among non-Lutherans that Lutherans believe in a doctrine called "consubstantiation", but ask a Lutheran and they will deny this. The common Lutheran belief is called sacramental union and, while not exactly like transubstantiation, it is unlike consubstantiation as well. I don't actually know the precise teachings of Reformation-era theologians, but I would say that the "only a symbol" belief began slowly and imperceptibly, and gathered steam over hundreds of years. Now there is a spectrum of belief, even within the Anglican communion, and with Lutherans too. Perhaps not all of them subscribe to the sacramental union doctrine, but according to my understanding, the vast majority of them do believe this, and definitely not in consubstantiation, which, as far as I can tell, has been largely discarded by everyone. Elizium23 (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Original sin
Please use the Talk page at Original sin to raise your concerns. They may well be well-founded, and certainly I welcome input. But right now I'm working towards a definition of the concept, and it's not easy - original sin is a whole host of definitions, some of them too simple, some too subtle, for our audience. So please help on the Talk page.Achar Sva (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've decided not to proceed with this project. I you want to go on, you might find the bibliography I compiled useful All the best. Achar Sva (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Rafaelosornio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Immaculate Conception did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. KNHaw  (talk)  22:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Immaculate Conception, you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , come on! Rafael was modifying existing sourced text based on the sources which he possesses! I find your accusations and your demands unreasonable. Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception Edit and reverts
I was one of the people who reverted your edit to Immaculate Conception and wanted to reach out to you about it. I don't think your edit is the problem, per se, but the fact that you only indicate the source in the edit summary is an issue.

Can you redo your edit but add a reference to the source inside the article? Take a look at Citing sources for how to do this or just reach out to me on my talk page, below.

Thanks! -- KNHaw  (talk)  23:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , he does not "only" indicate the source in his edit summary, the source is already cited in the article, he's just asserting that he read the source and he's modifying the prose to conform to what the source says. Elizium23 (talk) 23:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh my God, I will write the pages of both sources, maybe I read wrong:

Boring, Eugene (2012). An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Westminster John Knox. ISBN 9788178354569. Page 301:

Christ and Adam For Paul, both sin and salvation are corporate realities. Human beings are not lone individuals who may or may not strike up relations with others; to be human means our lives are already bound up in the network of humanity before we ever make individual decisions. Paul represents this as our corporate life in Adam. The story of the “fall” in Genesis 3—Adam’s rebellion against God and expulsion from paradise—plays no role in Old Testament theology, but in Paul’s context in first-century Judaism, Adam’s sin was sometimes seen as bringing sin and death into the world (e.g., 2 Esdras, 2 Baruch, Apocalypse of Moses, rabbinic texts). Paul is not constructing an original argument that sin and death were released into the world through Adam, but presupposes that this understanding of sin is known to his readers in the Roman church.

Paul does not think of “original sin” in the sense of a biologically transmitted disease or as later generations being held accountable for the deed of a remote ancestor. Adam’s act released a power into the world to which all human beings are subject; to be human is to be subject to sin and death. Paul does not understand death to be the natural end of human life. Rather, like sin, death is a transcendent power that overcomes and enslaves human life. Modern (and postmodern) readers can think of something like “systemic evil,” an overwhelming network of sin and death in which we are already involved before we ever make conscious decisions and from which we cannot extricate ourselves.

The meaning is not that God punishes all later generations for what Adam did, but that Adam’s story is the representative story of everyone.

SECOND SOURCE:

Toews, John (2013). The Story of Original Sin. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 9781620323694. PAGE 88:

ASSESSMENT By the time we get to Augustine in the fifth century CE in our story, ten to fifteen centuries from the story of Genesis 3 (depending on the dating of Genesis), we are a long way from the beginning in Genesis 3, from the interpretation of Paul in Romans, and from the infant or child-like Adam of the Greek fathers. The Genesis 3 story turns out to be a marginal one in the Hebrew scriptures; it is never cited or retold to explain the origin of sin or to talk about “the fall.” In fact, the Hebrew Scriptures do not assume a “fall.” Deuteronomy 30:11–14 is more characteristic in its assumption that humankind can obey the purposes of God.

Paul holds Adam accountable for releasing Sin as apocalyptic power into the world and links that event with human mortality. Paul says nothing about “the fall” or the corruption of human nature because of Adam’s sin or about the transmission of Adam’s sin through sexual intercourse. Furthermore, Paul’s real agenda is not Adam’s sin and its consequent universal death, but Messiah Jesus’ triumph over the apocalyptic power of Sin and gift of righteousness and life for all people. Paul’s purpose is to proclaim good news (“the gospel”) to Jews and Gentiles in the capital city of the Roman Empire to resolve relational disputes between believers in house churches and to counter imperial propaganda that Caesar Augustus is the “good news” that brings salvation, righteousness, peace, and life to the world. Paul is not concerned to offer an analysis of the origin of evil or sin or how it is propagated in the world.

In short, we should be clear that there is no biblical basis for Augustine’s doctrine of “original sin.” There is no basis for it in the Genesis 3 text, or elsewhere in the Old Testament. There is no basis for it in the New Testament, and certainly not in the locus classicus for Augustine, Romans 5:12. Specifically, there is no biblical evidence for a universal human nature which was forever biologically corrupted by Adam’s wilful act and for which all subsequent generations are now accountable. That is, there is no biblical evidence for the notion of “seminal identity” which asserts in one form or another that all humanity was present in Adam’s genitals and that an infinitesmal part of Adam’s corrupted soul has been transmitted to each subsequent person through the semen of his or her father through the process of sexual intercourse. The Platonic and Stoic foundations for such speculations about the origin and nature of the soul have been abandoned long ago. There is no biblical basis for such a theology, no theological justification for such a theology, and no scientific evidence for such a theology.Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for clarifying.  I was not doubting you or requiring you to add the text/analysis of the sources - thank you for going the extra mile nonetheless.  The phrasing of "I own a book..." in the comment was confusing.  If it's already sourced, that's fine.  I see no problems from here out.


 * Thank you and for your patience.


 * Happy editing! -- KNHaw   (talk)  00:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Warning: edit warring
Your recent editing history at Immaculate Conception 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.


 * We are wainting your answer in Talk page.Rafaelosornio (talk) 15:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It's Christmas, calm down. Achar Sva (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I've already talked about it on the Talk Page, please protect the page from editing until the disccussion has been resolved. The user reverts information that is referenced. Thanks! Rafaelosornio (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2021 (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. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 12:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
 You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Padre Pio) for a period of 1 week 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. signed,Rosguill talk 23:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

sfn referencing
Hi. When you add a sourcing to a sentence or other piece of information, please use the sfn format - sfn/author/year/page. It has the advantage of not cluttering up the page and so makes editing easier. Achar Sva (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

(Moments later). Oh, are you meaning that Greenholm isn't in the bibliography? I didn't notice. Then just use the sfn template in the text and add the book to the bibliography. Achar Sva (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The same I tell you, if you are going to put a reference, you must put it well.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Apocrypha
Wouldn't your new narrower definition be more applicable to Biblical apocrypha, with the previous wider definition applicable to Apocrypha? Editor2020 (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

www.kethertomalkuth.net/
I blocked the IP for spam. Warned them last night and they removed my warning. They also added some sources that were clearly unreliable. Doug Weller talk 10:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about or why you put this on my wall. Regards. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

fall of empire
Hello, in your recent edit you said the reference does not say what is claimed, so what does it say? (My husband is also a psychologist - now if I follow tradition I should ask if you know him, right? LOL!! I started in psych and moved over to philosophy and religion - weird huh?) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You can read what it says the book from the pages 145 to 148 here: https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=O_vnAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA145#v=onepage&q&f=false Regards!--Rafaelosornio (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

My name
I got a hint that you find the name Achar Sva unusual. I guess it is. An achar is an expert in ceremonies, mostly marriages and funerals, but also things like exorcisms. The achar whose name was Achar Sva lived in the mid-19th century, and led a revolt against the king. All of which is really pretty irrelevant - I just happened to have been reading some history, and like the sound of his name. Achar Sva (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Deuterocanonical books, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chronicles. 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) 05:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Source for Archangel Michael
Could you give me your opinion on this book as a potential source for the article? It looks useful, but I can't be sure if it's reliable. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Angels_A_to_Z/56B7fmmlt6QC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Archangel+Michael+Islam&printsec=frontcover Achar Sva (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Saint Peter Infobox
I have requested dispute resolution regarding our disagreement here, as it doesn't seem to me that our conversation alone is productive.Fureto (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Per Nightenbelle's suggeston closing my request for dispute resolution, I have requested a third opinion instead.Fureto (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

James White is a reliable source
The source was James white’s ministry’s official youtube channel (Alpha and Omega ministries) which should fit Wikipedia guidelines (Wikipedia allows youtube channels of official ministries, if it can be proven to be official) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples, James White is a theologian and even had his own wikipedia page, he was simply doing a video WITH another person. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_(theologian), as proof it is his official youtube channel is that the official site of Alpha and Omega ministries frequently links the youtube channel and the channel itself claims to be official ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

James White was simply doing work with another person (Stephen Boyce) but that shouldn’t make it an unreliable source if a professional is included. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (third request)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Paschasius Radbertus into Eucharist. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity of Mary
Thanks for your efforts at Perpetual virginity of Mary with an anon-IP in recent days. Is it worth requesting some sort of protection on the page? Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, only for anonymous users.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Brothers of Jesus 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.Achar Sva (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Bible edit
Hi! The Teahouse says you fixed the cite error, and your edit summary says I caused it, but it looks like you fixed one error only to recreate the other error which is the reason I changed it in the first place. Now #1 and 2 say "Harv error: this link doesn't point to any citation".

What do we do now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right. I don't know what the problem is. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Assumption of Mary - discussion on Talk
I've opened a discussion of talk. If our differences can't be resolved there, we'll take it to dispute resolution.Achar Sva (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Assumption of Mary
Rafael, could you hold off editing the article until the dispute between myself and the ISP is finalised? I'm about to seek a third opinion, and extra edits would only confuse matters. Your most recent edit, of course, was absolutely needed, so no problem with that. Thanks Achar Sva (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The Odist
As per "the Disciples of John and the Odes of Solomon" the Odist knew the apostle John which is the definition of an apostolic father. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:41, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * We need more references about it that says that Odes of Solomon belongs to Apostolic Fathers.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Thomasines
Why do not Thomasines belong to the Mysticist category, the Gnostic category is too disputed but Mysticism isn't. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see in the "Christian mysticism template" the word "Thomasines". Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ruchrat von Wesel
Philip Schaff uses the name "Ruchrath", both forms are used in different places, I did not make a mistake like you accused me of. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Gospel of James and ANI
I'm sorry Rafael but I'm going to have to take you to ANI for disruptive editing at Gospel of James. Not right now as I'm busy, but in a few hours. You can use those few hours to respond to the message on the article talk page where I tried, but apparently failed, to engage you in discussion - it's that refusal to discuss a dispute that will form the basis of the complaint.Achar Sva (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but you still hadn't posted anything on the Talk page when you say "See the talk page". You told me to go to the Talk page but you hadn't posted anything. You took too long to open the thread. I have already answered you. Before you say let's discuss it on the Talk page, please open a thread. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting
James White used the words "heretical" and "lingered with Gnosticism", the word "heterodox" is a synonym for this, and this precise accuracy on vocabulary, if the same meaning is kept, is not needed.. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) The source claimed the writing as heretical, and you falsely accused me of "changing sources to your own liking", the Perpetual Virginity of Mary is one of the only Marian dogmas I see as possible, James White most clearly argued that the source has heretical origins (which I am not sure of) but you changed the whole thing in a way which it is no longer an argument at all. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Apostolic Catholic Church
Hello. Pos. Good Day! I was wondering, why do you keep revisioning my edits??? In 1997, ACC became part of NCCP, thus, it's common sense that ACC has relations with NCCP. Ploreky (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice of a discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Thanks for correcting the definition of Justification that I mistakenly made sound overly Protestant by only including the declaration of righteousness. My initial thoughts were that it would be sufficient, as with the making of someone righteous they are also declared righteous in Catholic/Orthodox theology, but your definition is much better. Much appreciated!

Ysys9 (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC) 

WP:BRD
Really. Read it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reported vandalism
" There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)"

Long-running disagreement
You and Achar Sva appear to have a multi-year adversarial relationship. I don't have the intention of bringing Achar Sva to ANI unless their policy-violating behavior continues. However, I should make you aware that the long-running dispute between you and Achar Sva could mean any reports against Achar Sva will also involve investigation of your conduct. I would encourage you to avoid escalation in this dispute and to seek input or mediation from other editors. I understand the frustration involved with encountering repeated infractions from the same editor, but have reviewed some of your interactions with Achar Sva and believe there are instances where you may have broken policies. Please feel welcome to ping me here to ask questions or request assistance. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Information icon4.svg There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Cullen328 (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2023 (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.

User talk pages
Hi there Rafael. I'm just looking in to the dispute on Padre Pio and wanted to raise a concern. Mr. Bobby had removed a message from you on his user talk page. You restored the section in this diff with the edit summary of 'You can't delete this'. However our userpage policy, the section lead to by the shortcut WP:REMOVE, notes In the future do not restore messages a user has removed from their own talk page. We need to tamp down the personal nature of this dispute. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Understood. Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm not trying to step on anyone's toes or tell you guys how to write the article but I would highly encourage you to go through the dispute resolution process, either WP:3O or a full WP:RfC. As it stands now the dispute is getting a bit too personal and when that happens both sides tend to come out of it looking not that great. You have an obvious passion for topics that are somewhat obscure from the perspective of the average wikipedia editor and I feel like that can make you an incredible asset to the project. --(loopback) ping/whereis 13:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Report
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mr. bobby (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Jirda5 (talk) 02:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC) please don't vandalize all my hard work! (tithe/yemen)

Eucharist
Your comment was much needed. Thanks for that. desmay (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Final warning: edit warring
You have repeatedly edit-warred, often in defiance of consensuses you disagree with. When a discussion results in a merge you don't like, you are not supposed to prevent the merge by deleting material that reflects the newly merged state. You are far better off reopening formal discussion about nuanced points of the material rather than deleting it wholesale. Any further edit-warring will result in either a 3RR report or an ANI. Please abide by the previous consensus and seek a new one if you want something changed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * When merging one article with another, you can't merge information without sources. All the Anglican part you added doesn't have a single reference. And the intro that you want to change is incompatible with the sources. You cannot add original information and say "the Eucharist is... the product of it" just because you say it and according to you. Then we would need to add to the article "According to the Wikipedia user Pbritti the Eucharist is... the product of it" Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * From WP:Merging: "Copy all or some of the content from the source page(s) and paste the content in an appropriate location at the destination page." Not "copy only the sourced content" or "copy only the bits I like". The only part I didn't copy was the Lutheranism portion, as I felt it was sufficiently addressed in other articles—a situation directly addressed in the discussion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You added a large part of the content in the Anglican part without a single source, you just added one right now, I invite you to add the rest of the missing references. Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I added the material copy-and-paste from the merge. I performed a merge. According to Merging. So you edit-warred. Not great! Then you deleted content that was easily sourced. Also not great! Please stop edit-warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * A copy-and-paste without references... Please add content with references, if the sources are easy to find then put them. Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll repeat it clearly so you understand: I followed policy by adding it without sources (yes, that means you have to later add the sources, but you don't delete them that same day). You have frequently broken policy by edit-warring, which you did here. Stop edit warring. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023
Your recent editing history at Eucharist 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.''By failing to acknowledge discussion, you are edit warring. Also note that you insisted on sources, received sources, and dismissed them. ~'' Pbritti (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Eucharist 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.''Only warning: failure to self-revert your change on Eucharist will result in a 3RR report. I'm choosing to give you 12 hours, but you have crossed the line many times already. ~'' Pbritti (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring at Our Lady of Fátima
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Our Lady of Fátima. 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. DuncanHill (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2023 (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) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)