User talk:Achar Sva

Gospel

Begoon, I deleted your addition without my user-name, you reverted it, and I re-deleted it. I tried to explain why in my edit summary but there wasn't really enough room. If you'd like to discuss further please start a new thread on the talk page of Gospel. Achar Sva (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't care strongly enough about it to debate it. It seems to me that deleting information because you don't like the way it is formatted as a reference is a poor choice of action when you could just as easily fix the style or technical issues - but you obviously don't like the content. I'll leave your removal as it is - if anyone else disagrees they might reinstate it - I'm not really interested in a longer discussion. Thanks for the note anyway. -- Begoon 04:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would I disagree with it? It's just that those footnotes are to alert the reader to the source of information in the article, and your note wasn't doing that. Another problem, though, is that the material you posted is irrelevant (or so it seems to me): the article is about the written gospels, not evangelism. You're welcome to put your views on the talk page. Achar Sva (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Er, just to be clear - it wasn't "my note" or "material I posted" - it was existing content. I just reverted your removal because I didn't think removal was the best thing to do. Now, armed with that information, and the knowledge that you say you don't disagree with it as content - proceed as you see fit. I'm afraid I have other things to spend my time on than pedantic little debates like this. My advice, as I've tried to make clear, is: if you disagree with the content, remove it, if you just disagree with how it's presented, fix that without removal. Thank you. -- Begoon 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, before you decide what to do, you should probably read WP:FOOTNOTE which, rather than your incorrect contention that "footnotes are to alert the reader to the source of information in the article", cleary explains that one of their functions is also "to provide explanatory information". -- Begoon 06:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify some terminology, by "footnotes" I mean a citations section, which some articles possess and many do not; personally I like to have this as a subsection of a references section, which contains both the citations and a bibliography; this works best for an article in which the citations are formatted as sfn. For footnotes properly so called I like to have a "notes" section. The separation can be seen in an article like Book of Daniel. Anyway, happy editing :) Achar Sva (talk) 09:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

My reversal of your edit.

The reason I reversed your edit was because alothough it its fringe it is one of many opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !matt2446 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ex nihilo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaos (check to confirm | 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) 08:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Please, come here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gospel#This_article_needs_heavy_improvement --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ex nihilo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaos (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome back

Glad to see you around. —PaleoNeonate – 03:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Paleo: Yeah. It's a love-hate relationship :) Achar Sva (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Final Warning

We had an agreement and a consensus on the talk page to include the scholars that challenge the consensus. You are being disruptive by edit warring and removing what we agreed on in the talk page. For the final time, STOP DOING IT. You will be reported for being a disruptive editor. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 06:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

GoogleMeNowPlease, we had no agreement, there was no consensus, and if you feel that a report is justified it's your right.Achar Sva (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not know about you. We, the editors of the page about Gospels, OVERWHELMINGLY agreed that these edits would be put in there. You need to respect the consensus that was reached on the talk page. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 06:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly? You and DJ Clayton agreed; DJ Clayton also agreed with the addition "conservative," which you ignored. And you removed text without even discussing it. That's not a consensus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I am satisfied with how it is right now. I suggest we let it stay --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I feel concerned

Hello, we have crossed paths before on the Gospel article, and I have recently seen you on several other important Bible related pages. I took the liberty to look through your edit history, and I feel concerned that you are a single issue editor. I have seen a pattern of you specifically trying to go through Bible related subjects to make them sound much less reliable, remove much larger academic views, even when they are discussed to bring them up to what you consider reliable scholarship, which coincidentally happens to be almost always a very minimalist position, which would undermine most Christian beliefs. You have repeatedly used provocative, anti-religious language, even when no scholars would use the descriptor. You have used the word "fiction" to describe Bible stories, and called Islamic scriptures "folklore". As a Roman Catholic editor myself, I completely sympathize with the fact that people have different beliefs, but there is ample evidence that the edits you make are almost always aimed at promoting a much less minimalist position of the Bible, using completely irreverent language for other people's beliefs, and removing any opposing opinion. I understand that you will respond by saying that you only follow what scholars say, but that is demonstrably untrue, in both your interactions with me and in your use of childish, insulting and irreverent language against people's deeply held beliefs. As a Roman Catholic myself, I will not let Wikipedia turn into a place that promotes the Bible as mythology or people who are interested in promoting Biblical minimalism and disallowing any opposing views, even when cited. I have no problem with various scholarly views being in Wikipedia, but I have carefully observed the pattern, where you single out the Bible to remove most maximalist views and insert Biblical minimalism. This is single issue editing and I am completely opposed to this behavior. Before you respond by saying that you are merely trying to cite what scholars say... I highly doubt that it is merely a coincidence that the scholars you seem to stand by, almost without any exceptions happen to promote a more minimalist view. If I have missed something, I sincerely apologize. But I personally do not think that this bias has place on wikipedia. I personally believe that atheism is the most disgusting ideology to have existed and has no place in a happy and a free society, but I definitely will not go around trying to promote this view in Wikipedia. It is completely unprofessional--GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I personally believe that atheism is the most disgusting ideology to have existed and has no place in a happy and a free society, but I definitely will not go around trying to promote this view in Wikipedia. - yeah, right; talking about a bias. See Encyclopédie: the Encyclopédie's aim was "to change the way people think" and for people to be able to inform themselves and to know things. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It was an example. I have my views, but I try not to let my views influence how I edit. I demand the same from others. Look at their posting history. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: See WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

No. I have no problem with mainstream scholarship. Calling a Biblical battle "fiction", even though, the category of fiction did not exist back then, has nothing to do with mainstream scholarship. It has everything to do with wanting to offend GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: It either did happen or it didn't happen. That's kind of simple. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For keeping-up the Enlightenment-Spirit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you :) Achar Sva (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? Begging for barnstars on article talk pages?

What's wrong with you? You don't ask people for barnstars on article talk pages. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

And where else would I beg for them? Forgive a moment of weakness. Achar Sva (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying my views on how Wikipedia should approach Biblical scholarship

In Wikipedia, when addressing Biblical scholarship, we have a tradition of presenting the range of views, (typically ranging from maximalist views to minimalist views) then explaining where the scholarship generally leans and why, and also presenting notable scholars that have challenged the developing consensus. I realize that this it NOT always possible. I understand that certain theories, even when widely believed, are so fringe that we cannot entertain them as valid scholarship. I respect the fact that we cannot present Young Earth Creationism as a valid view in Biblical archaeology and that we cannot present Christ mythicism as valid New Testament scholarship, however, more often than not, we *can* present the range of views. In other words, your vision of Wikipedia which discusses the Bible as a disproven myth, Jesus as a failed apocalyptic prophet, and anyone who dares disagree as an "ultra-conservative" loon, is totally at odds with my vision of Wikipedia. I am open to compromise, but remember, compromise must be coming from both sides... It should not be me compromising while you disregard any necessity for discussion with others. God bless GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: The problem is not your vision or my vision, but compliance with WP:PAGs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That's just further obfuscation. Clearly, both sides feel that they are complying with the Policies and Guidelines. Often, the policies and guidelines excuse is given to simply portray the other side as unreasonable. This person has been documented making ideological changes and writing false statements. Almost ROUTINELY, this person changes the structure of articles that have been standing for years. I, on the other hand, usually have to go through weeks of discussion with other users when making even slight alterations. You personally, invariably take the side of the minimalist position, and simply default to saying that the other side is ignoring the policies, when that is demonstrably untrue. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoogleMeNowPlease: Actually Achar Sva is a quite experienced editor. And yes, he takes the minimalist position when that's the only position at WP:CHOPSY. If there are more acceptable positions in the mainstream academia, he renders them all. Yup, if mainstream academia has completely abandoned maximalist positions on certain issues, that's not his own fault. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Please, stop defending the inexcusable. This user is a known anti-Catholic bigot. He does not need help --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

GoogleMeNowPlease has been indeffed. Behaviorally, I think he is a WP:SOCK of Wittgenstein123. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe in defense of Achar Sva, I've not seen this editor push for Jesus myth theory views which are still considered WP:FRINGE in academia (on the contrary, even). I also don't expect that unless it became the mainstream scholarly view (it simply isn't)... —PaleoNeonate – 17:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cursing the fig tree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Harassment

The continued attempts to harass me for not responding on whatever schedule you would wish for response is inappropriate. I don't know about you, but I'm actually a volunteer who works in bits of editing in the spare time within a large array of professional and family obligations, and this article is neither the most important nor the most urgent among those that I edit. If you continue to act in this hostile, uncollaborative manner, then I will raise the issue in the appropriate location. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Mosaic authorship

I'm not sure that "dictated to Moses" is correct. I was going to link biblical inspiration, but it says Christian belief. I then looked at Verbal dictation, but that doesn't fit that well either. I'm not going to revert but would appreciate your thinking about the issue. Editor2020 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor2020: I believe that the rabbis say it was dictated, which is something other than inspired. Robinson (the source) says "it was dictated to Moshe by God...", but then in the next sentence quotes Rabbi Judah Eisenstein (obviously a modern rabbi) using the word "inspired". Footnote 20 quotes a book by [Abraham Joshua Heschel in which Heschel says there are two theories, one being divine dictation, the other something he calls transcription - unfortunately the page that talks about transcription has fallen down the google hole. Certainly direct dictation is one theory, and I don't think it's found in Christian theology (the bible authors are said to be inspired, but they do not take down dictation). What transcription is I don't know. I think the article needs to be expanded a bit. Do you want to do that? Achar Sva (talk) 11:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I defer to you.Editor2020 (talk) 20:27, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A discussion that may interest you

Talk:Bart D. Ehrman § Some Concerns, Thanks —PaleoNeonate – 02:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Per my revert

Please see WP:PUBLISHED. The source does not have to be available online to read, although it is ideal it is not a requirement. -- a lad insane (channel two) 08:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's true that sources used in articles don't have to be available online, but in the real world I don't expect readers to have access to a university-level library. If a point is widely accepted in the academic community, it will be made by a source available online.Achar Sva (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I was just coming to say similar things to A lad insane, but point either to the entire guideline or WP:REPUTABLE. Sources do not need to be online to meet verifiable. Your claim that something will be available online of it's accepted in the academic community is equally flawed as older or newer books may not be available online. Older books because they have not been made available and newer books for copyright and monetary reasons. Feel free to debate the point at WP:RSN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I won't debate the matter at RSN as I know the policy. Nevertheless, I might just point out that if a point in the article cites a book that isn't available online, and I then delete it with the comment that the source doesn't support it, there's really not much that other editors can say to contradict me. Or if I say something in the article and give a citation to a book that isn't available online, again there's nothing anyone can say to force its removal. So it's safer to stick to online sources.Achar Sva (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

(Not, of course, that I would ever do such things - I'm just pointing out hypotheticals.Achar Sva (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to state that "the source doesn't support it" when what you wrote was "deleted book not available in google books". Are you sure we're discussing the same incident?

If you doubt the content there's always {{Request quotation}} because we WP:AGF. Walter Görlitz (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not discussing any incident at all, just the general question of why using online books is best. Achar Sva (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Historical reliability of the Gospels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Book of Kings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Hey Achar, I've been meaning to bestow a barnstar now for a while. I have seen what you have done for Marian topics and I must give credit where credit is due, your edits are on-point and improve the articles every time! So thanks, and keep up the great work! Elizium23 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

THank you for those words, and especially coming from you. I'm sure some editors will think I must be biased and anti-Catholic, but I'm not, I just try to be balanced and impartial. So thank you again. Achar Sva (talk) 07:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Immaculate Conception, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bukhari (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Re:Immaculate Conception and Lutheranism

Dear User:Achar Sva, thank you for your very kind message on my talk page today. Luther himself held to the Immaculate Conception (at a time when even most Catholics did not) and some in the Evangelical Catholic wing of Lutheranism (comparable to the Anglo-Catholic wing of Anglicanism) today would continue to hold to this doctrine as a pious opinion; indeed, there has been discussion of Lutheran Ordinariates akin to the Anglican Ordinariates in union with Rome. I will share an article with you titled The Immaculate Conception and Martin Luther in the Conciliar Post, which states:

In the years leading up to and during the Protestant Reformation, the dominant Catholic opinion denied the immaculate conception. The Dominicans, who taught at most of the European universities, taught that Mary never sinned but was not without original sin, thus following the teaching of Aquinas. Saint Catherine of Siena upheld Aquinas’s opinion as well, and the Council of Trent did not affirm the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Most remarkably, the most prominent Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, supported the doctrine, thus aligning certain aspects of Luther’s Mariology with modern Catholic Mariology. Martin Luther firmly believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, in her role as the Mother of God, her reign as the Queen of Heaven, and in her immaculate conception. Luther wrote, “It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary’s soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God’s gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin.” Luther firmly asserted here and in other sermons and writings that Mary was conceived without original sin so that she might become the Mother of God. Luther’s high Mariology did not end with support of theological doctrines, and it must be noted that many of his writings on Mary are dated well after his break from the Roman Catholic Church.

The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception though, differs from other more ancient Marian doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary because it was promulgated quite late in Church History (well after the Reformation). As such, while many Evangelical Catholics in the Lutheran Churches might hold to the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, only some would hold to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I hope this helps and that you have a wonderful day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

George Pell

Thanks for your edit to Pell's article. You may want to join the conversation at Talk:George Pell#"Wrongfully convicted"? and the following section Talk:George Pell#Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2020. HiLo48 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assumption of Mary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphanius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Assumption of Mary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gelasius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing an unbiased edit made to a biased post

Achar Sva the edit on the virgin birth in Islam is unbiased and uses the most reliable source regarding the matter. It does not make sense that you do not want a primary source being used, sir. Especially when no bias was included. Please do not change the edit to the aggressive and very bias previous version. Thank sir

Seanabbs

I didn't say your source was biased, I said (or meant) that this is not the kind of source we use on Wikipedia. You need to find a secondary source, by a scholar of religion. I know that must sound strange, but it's simply thw way Wikipedia works. Also, your entry was far too long - try to make it the same length, approximately, as other entries. (I can help you with acceptable sources if you wish). Achar Sva (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

How is the post now? I felt it was short enough despite the virgin birth being important in Islam. Thank you for your help in educating me on wikipedia rules, please let us work together on this issue so that we can provide users with correct unbiased information. Once again Achar Scva, thank you

Seanabbs

Ok, I'll leave that one there. Happy editing :) Achar Sva (talk) 21:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

On the Synoptic Question

Hi Achar. Hope you are well. On the Wenham book, I found the two editions (here and here) but I believe neither version has a preview. So that makes it harder. Can you suggest how best to proceed? I used the ISBN numbers to search on Google Books.

But regarding the general question of the Synoptic Gospels, I believe Lukan authorship would work even with Markan priority. This particular point of the Gospel of St. Luke being written before 55 A.D., when II Corinthians was written, could imo be considered independent of the broader one. If you want to discuss the Synoptic question in general, we can surely do that also in the appropriate place. But for now, if the reference in II Corinthians is authentic (and there is nearly a 2000 year Tradition attesting to it, from St. Ignatius and St. Jerome to Fr. Lapide to Wentham), could that evidence be considered?

Thank You. Peace and God Bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs) 14:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

[User:NishantXavier|NishantXavier]], Wikipedia isn't about trying to find the truth, still less about making arguments for theories: what it's about is presenting the opinion of modern scholars, the majority opinion if there is one, the major alternative opinions if there's not. We can find out what's a majority opinion by finding a scholar who tells us - one who says, for example, "the consensus of scholarship is..." or "most scholars believe..." or something similar. If we can't find that then we have a problem, and we also have a problem is two different scholars contradict each other about what the majority of scholars think, but usually we can get there. The point I'm making is that what matters is not Wenham's opinion, but the opinion of the majority. Also, 1991 is fairly old (about 30 years), so it would be better to find something more recent. Achar Sva (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I would think the most important purpose of an Encyclopedia is the Truth; putting out true information so readers can grow in true knowledge and real understanding of the world and its history. But I can see we're probably going to disagree on this, so maybe I'll post on less controversial issues in future. I think it is of the utmost importance that St. Luke wrote before 55 A.D. and there is very good evidence that supports it. I don't agree with "current majoritarianism". At least if you want to appeal to majoritarianism, you should consider it over a 200 or 500 year period of time. The Two Gospel Hypothesis has broadly as much support over the last 200 years as the Two Source Hypothesis. Over the last 500, or last 2000, it is no contest at all. I can show you very recent books on the Synoptic problem that say the test of a theory is how long it can find favor. In 10 years, the majority consensus may well be for the Two-Gospel idea again, as it was not long ago. But fine. I'll accept the status quo for now. NishantXavier (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This book: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=xlWveEVuGscC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false says on page 22 "Although scholars as late as 1970 could claim Markan priority as a majority belief (see above), by 1979 such was no longer the case. I have Seminary Education and I've taught the Bible and New Testament studies for over 10 years. I've published articles on the Synoptic Question, some of which will be online soon. Give me a chance, and I'll show Markan priority and Gospels-allegedly-being-written-late is a false theory by every historical standard NishantXavier (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Your deletion of my additions to the bibliography of the Gospel of Mark

Achar Sva OOPS!…. You were quick on the trigger :-) I intended to use them in the article. I am still working on the edits I have in mind.... :-) never mind... BTW, These are major FREE access online resources (check them out!): https://www.academia.edu/12981524/Oskar_Skarsaune_and_Reidar_Hvalvik_eds._Jewish_Believers_in_Jesus_The_Early_Centuries_Peabody_Mass._Hendrickson_Publishers_2007_ https://www.academia.edu/29628872/Jewish-Christian_Relations-The_First_Centuries_-_FULL_MANUSCRIPT_DOWNLOAD_ Should I do first the edits and then the addition to the bibliography? A19470822 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by A19470822 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Do the edits and add the books at the same time. If you like you could put the edits and sources on the Talk page page first and ask for comment, simply because you're a new editor and might like some guidance. Achar Sva (talk) 11:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Virgin birth of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Exodus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Covenant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Massacre of the Innocents. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fajkfnjsak

Just FYI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fajkfnjsak. I’d say the evidence is pretty clear.—Ermenrich (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gospel of James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Voldemort

About On that basis you could have a real person behind Lord Voldemort: I have my theory about Harry Potter. It is somewhat based upon a real-life situation. The real-life action takes place in an insane asylum. The pupils are the patients. The good professors of magic and spiritualistic-minded psychiatrists. The evildoers are positivistic psychiatrists. The normal people are the muggles. So, yeah, I guess there was a real person behind Lord Voldemort. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gospel of James, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pope Innocent.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Please take a moment to familiarize yourself with what Wikipedia is and is not. Wikipedia is not just another news, forum, blog/webhost, promotional/advertising/directory, or social networking site. It is a place for serious, collaborative, scholarly assembly of knowledge about notable subjects into a high-quality encyclopedia, with verifiable references to independent, reliable sources. Many people come here with other expectations and have a difficult time as a result.
• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by adding a space and four tildes to the end of the last line of your post, like this:

This is the last line of the post. ~~~~

The tildes will be automatically converted to a signature that contains your linked username and a timestamp to help keep conversations organized. I will sign mine accordingly with hopes you will remember me and will feel free to ask me any questions you have--or just say hi! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Gospel of Matthew 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Edion Petriti (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion you are involved in

Please be gently notified that you are a topic of discussion here: [1] Edion Petriti (talk) 09:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Edion Petriti - I like the "gently" :) Thanks for the notice.Achar Sva (talk) 09:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You can have the last word, this is indeed your talk page. Edion Petriti (talk) 09:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Edion Petriti, I was simply acknowledging that I'd read your notice, and thanking you. Achar Sva (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced claims because you don't have access to the source

You justified this edit with "can't check this book". That is not a valid reason to remove a sourced claim. Sources should only be removed when they are unused, unreliable for the claim, can be replaced with a better source, or when they fail verification. If you are skeptical of a sourced claim and you can't access the source, the proper approach is to request a WP:FOOTQUOTE. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Paradoctor, I removed the sentence because it says something other sources contradict - i.e., that "Judaism has always translated creation" as creation from nothing. This is simply untrue, and as a result I'm not willing to have that in the article. I have no problem with the rest of the sentence. Achar Sva (talk) 00:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

You didn't cite these sources. More importantly, when different sources say different things, we have to point out that there is disagreement in the literature. We do not decide conflicts in favor of one school or another. Paradoctor (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of that link. The first sentence of that section of the ex nihilo article says: "The idea of creation ex nihilo was introduced into Judaism in the 10th century CE by Saadia Gaon, who in his work Book of Beliefs and Opinions imagined a God far more awesome and omnipotent than that of the rabbis, the traditional Jewish teachers who had so far dominated Judaism and whose God had created the world from pre-existing matter." That's sourced from Satlow's "Creating Judaism", and Satlow is RS. The sentence I deleted directly contradicts Satlow; I'd normally check out these things but I can't locate that source and, frankly, it looks apologetic rather than scholarly. If the point it makes is indeed accepted in scholarly circles there'll be a respectable source.Achar Sva (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"directly contradicts Satlow" So what? Disagreement and lack of consensus among experts happens all the time. Opposing opinions belong into an encyclopedic article, subject to WP:DUE. What you don't do is delete a sourced claim just because you can't access the source. Paradoctor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict only Satlow, but every reliable source on the subject. That a claim is sourced is only the beginning: the source has to be reliable, and this one isn't. Achar Sva (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

And how is a reader supposed to know that? Paradoctor (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Precisely: that's why I removed the material from that source: it couldn't be checked (or not without going to a great deal of trouble, which I doubt any reasonable reader of Wikipedia would do). Achar Sva (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your personal ability in accessing sources is not an argument here. You did notice that it took me mere minutes to verify the source? Most of which I spent reading. WP:SOURCEACCESS: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access[...] If you have trouble accessing a source, others may be able to do so on your behalf. As I pointed out in my first comment, you can always request a WP:FOOTQUOTE. Paradoctor (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I did notice that, and I was impressed. So you think it's a reliable source?Achar Sva (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as you well know. The point is, I didn't rely on my personal opinion to remove a prima facie well-sourced statement. An existing citation takes precedence over editor opinion. Otherwise citations would be pointless, because there is always someone who can't access any given source. Paradoctor (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

P. S.: LibGen is your friend. Paradoctor (talk) 05:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll bear that in mind. Nevertheless, the idea of matter as something in need of creation, rather than formation (moulding), came to Judaism only in the early middle ages, and it would take a more academically respectable source than that to present a contrary case. Though mind you, Immanuel Schochet may well have been simply out of date.Achar Sva (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

While my interest in ontology brought me to ex nihilo, religion is not of interest to me, so you'll get more mileage out of someone closer to that topic. ;) Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 06:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

ex nihilo

Creatio ex nihilo is a redirect to ex nihilo. Would you like to reverse the article/redirect order? Editor2020 (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea. But raise it on the article talk page. Achar Sva (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Abraham 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Anupam^Talk 21:30, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of sourced info

Please stop removing sourced information in the Cyrus the Great article, thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The information is not correct: the consensus of scholars is that the figure of Dhul-Q is based on Alexander, not Cyrus. There is now a reliable source for this in the article. Please do not change it by restoring inaccurate material Achar Sva (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Help if you can please

I know we don't really know each other, but I am in need of help. About a month ago I nominated Biblical criticism for FA. It is getting little enough attention that the coordinator is considering archiving it. This is its second try and I am afraid that would kill it forever. IMO, it is an important topic that deserves to be amongst WP's best. It needs a source review - random checks to be sure sources say what the text claims - so I am asking everyone I know for help. There are too many sources for any one person to do, so if you could even do one, it would be deeply appreciated. Post anything you do here. Please help if you can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions

Thank you for moderating. I have extended the archive date by another week so that the case will not disappear. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon. Please keep an eye on things as this is my first try. Achar Sva (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yahwism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page El.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:Sundayclose. Sundayclose (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I won't risk getting blocked over a few words by battling you over your assumption that you WP:OWN the article. But I also will not stop watching the article and challenging you when you act as if you have some sort of special privilege to edit the article without regard to the opinions of other editors. This grammatical error on your part is not as serious as your previous edit warring over your absurd claim that every denomination that is "not in full communion with Rome is protestant". That's not just silly edit warring over grammar; it reflects a profound lack of understanding of the concepts discussed in the article. And I'm not the only editor who has called you out on similar disruptive editing. I will continue watching the article, and if you again decide to try to force egregious errors into the article, you will be defending yourself at WP:ANI. Sundayclose (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ANI about this disruptive editor opened here. Achar Sva (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

question

Hey, as an alternative to Wikipedia, which is generally more reliable, Britannica or Conservapedia? Thx--GorgeousJ (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again

Hi remember we talked about did Adam and Eve really exist. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this: The Untold Truth Of Adam And Eve and this Scientific Adam and Eve | National Geographic, YouTube video. Davidgoodheart (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Samaritan

Your remark in 'Historical reliability of the Gospels' about this parable being an invention of Luke is way out of line with the scholarly consensus, and I propose to delete it. Do you object? regards,HuPi (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Achar Sva

I was sorry to see your reinsertion of the assertion of the inauthenticity of the parable of the Good Samaritan. Whether I like it or not is irrevelant. I am familiar with the literature on the subject, and judge that Meier's remark is indeed unrepresentative. In time, it may become orthodoxy, but for the present it should not be put forward as a main-stream view.HuPi (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

DRN Sri Lankan_Civil_War discussion

Are you an involved editor in this dispute? Do I need to add you to it? If not, I need to ask that you keep your comments to discussion sections and do not randomly comment in sections designated for set people. You are welcome to participate- but in discussion periods. From time to time- I will ask for specific things from the participants- like I did here asking them each to provide their ideal final sentence. Once they have done that- I will open up for discussion. This helps keep things organized. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Nightenbelle. My apologies, I wasn't aware that I shouldn't comment there. I'll stay out of it. Achar Sva (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

You are absolutely welcome to comment there, I just ask that you keep those comments in the discussion session. I was legitimately asking if you wanted to be added as an involved editor. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

On the Kingdom of Israel (United Monarchy)

Dear @Achar Sva:, I'm contacting you because of the subject of the Davidic Monarchy. As you probably know, the subject is heavily debated among archaeologist and biblical scholars: while minimalists like Thomas L. Thompson, Israel Finkelstein and Ze'ev Herzog deny its existance, maximalists like Kenneth Kitchen and centrists like William G. Dever, Amihai Mazar and Baruch Halpern state that such kingdom did indeed exist. Since the debate does not seem to have reached a conclusion (although some recent discoveries by Eilat Mazar and Yosef Garfinkel seem to point in favour of the centrist-maximalist), I believe that Wikipedia should give voice to both sides, without simply reporting Finkelstein's opinions and dismissing the others a priori: Finkelstein isn't the only voice in Syro-Levantine archaeology and his views have been strongly critized by numerous scholars. Therefore, I believe pages on this subjects should be more equilibrated. Thanks, --Karma1998 (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: - Is this in relation to my edits on the article Yahwism? I have no opinion on the exitence or non-existence of a united kingdom in relation to that subject, not do I think it should be an issue. What I'm trying to do is focus on the religion rather than the god - Yahwism certainly had Yahweh as the central deity, but there's an article about Yahweh the god already, and we need to avoid overlap where possible. I'm also trying to make sure that everything is supported by recent scholarship (or fairly recent - say since 2000 if possible), and that it's balanced in the scholarly sense, meaning that it states majority opinions where they exist and explains disputes and areas of uncertainty. But this sort of discussion belongs on the article talk page. Achar Sva (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: I understand and I do appreciate your compromise on "ancient Israel". However, I must underline that no majority opinion exists on the United Monarchy, although recent archaeological discoveries seem to point towards its existence. It should also be noted that Finkelstein's Low Chronology has been strongly criticized by scholars and the majority of archaeologists now adopt Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology. So I think that saying that the existence of the United Monarchy is "dubious" is quite an exaggeration. -Karma1998 (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: I don't know why you're so insistent on this - I don't remember having made an issue of this in any my recent editing. Does it relate to a specific article? Achar Sva (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It related to the Yahwism article, where my edit about the United Monarchy was reversed. But perhaps it wasn't you, maybe I picked the wrong person Karma1998 (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at It was a dark and stormy night, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

ARBIPA sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Kautilya3 (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Empty Tomb Assumption?

Hi @Achar Sva:, hope you're doing well. There seems to be a disagreement over interpretations of sources at empty tomb. I know you've taken an interest in the article and I was wondering if you could weigh in. The question lies in the validity of the empty tomb being tied into an assumption narrative. Perhaps this would interest you. Rusdo (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Achar Sva, I was wondering whether you had ever edited outside of the religious space before editing Australian Strategic Policy Institute and what inspired you to edit that particular page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back - hi to you also. I have edited outside the religious space, but rarely. Even within the religious space, my field is narrow and focussed on the text rather than the theology. So what drew me to edit ASPI? Boredom. I work on the computer all day, I get bored, I take a break on Firefox, I find an article in Pearls and Irritations accusing ASPI of all sorts of wickedness on Wikipedia, and take a look. I find the article is well referenced, which makes checking sources easy, and has structural issues that can be fixed. So, pour fait passer les temps, I edit it. Achar Sva (talk) 21:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping outside of your comfort zone! I think its wonderful when editors spread their energies around and I wanted to take a moment to just say thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI

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

October 2021

Hello, I'm Waggers. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Brothers of Jesus have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. WaggersTALK 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Yahweh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Judah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Immaculate Conception, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conception.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Torah into Book of Exodus. 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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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 Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I didn't copy anything from anywhere, I reverted to an earlier version of the same article. Perhaps it's the article torah that copied from the article exodus. Achar Sva (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michael (archangel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Menorah.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Sheol

Perhaps you could take a look at Sheol? I notice that most of the sources are not academic.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The power of the herd

The truth is just the power of the herd with roll back powers isnt IT? I don't know about You but Most of the people think wikipedia is about facts,truth etc. But IT seems you are keep deleting arguments ,quotes,books showing the article is biased but have nothing against those posting quotes supporting the atheist view without arguments . Probably you are not christian isn't IT? With this type of attitude wikipedia is going down the drain. Merry Christmas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.213.55 (talk) 07:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:GOODBIAS, WP:VERECUNDIAM. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nativity of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King of the Jews.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Piracy

With this edit, you linked to a pirate copy of a book that is in copyright. I have reverted it, but please do understand that Wikipedia takes a strong line on copyright, for many good legal, practical, moral and social reasons. Wikipedia:Copyrights is a clear and useful, yet brief, documentation of policy. NebY (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brothers of Jesus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hegesippus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Step-brothers of Jesus

To assume that Joseph was not Jesus' father is POV because it's a religious, not historical, concept. Christians can believe it, but there is no proof of it as a fact. There is no reliable source that identifies Jesus' father as anyone other than Joseph. If men have the same father and different mothers, they are half-brothers, not step-brothers. Please either change the header or explain it more clearly. Frankly, that section was better before you added headers. I suggest removing them, but if you have other ideas I'm open to suggestion, but not using the term step-brothers. Sundayclose (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

I reverted this edit because you gave no explanation for the content removal, and I could see no reason why you were removing potentially useful information from that page. --Yamla (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Yamla. It wasn't intentional, just a complete accidental mess.Achar Sva (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You should see the misclicks I make playing online chess. :) Have a good day! --Yamla (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Dear Achar Sva

Dear Achar Sva

I am not very happy about the fact that I (and it seems others) seem to have no say in the editing of the article on Assumption. Wikipedia is nothing if not a team effort, and we respect your contributions, but reverting every single edit feels a little disheartening. I spent a good deal of time making sure that I cited sources accurately and gave specific page numbers.

I would appreciate if we could edit this article together, rather than you simply reverting anyone who disagrees.

Thanks --65.94.99.123 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, 65.94.99.123. Thanks for coming here, though I actually asked that you/we go to the article talk page. You should get yourself an editor-name (just make one up), and then we can discuss. Achar Sva (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Dear @Achar Sva: With respect, no Wikipedia rule requires that I make up a username. I have absolutely no problem going by my location since I have nothing to hide. I am a constructive editor, and have done nothing that would destablizie wikipedia. I am sure you do a lot of source citing. I simply want to contribute to the article, avoiding my opinions as much as possible and sticking with the sources. You seem to refuse to compromise at all, which I find disheartening. 65.94.99.123 (talk) 06:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

You're correct that you're not actually required to take a user name, but it's useful, especially if you do a lot of editing. And I really do hope that you stay and contribute. I'm currently in the midst of writing a reply to you on the article talk page, so let's go there. Achar Sva (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Your recent editing history at Dhu al-Qarnayn 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

And, User talk:Wiqi55, edit warring can also get you banned. Time to go to dispute resolution I think. Achar Sva (talk) 06:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Achar Sva. Why not just take things slowly, use the article talk page, and check the cited sources first? See also wp:structure. Wiqi⁽⁵⁵⁾ 06:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apocalypse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page End of days.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent dispute on Esther

Dear Achar Sva, I am sure you have noticed that I am not entirely happy with the edits you make on the page for Esther. This has nothing to do with the quality of your sources, which, appear to me to be solid. It has to do with you wishing to leave out some material, or not fully include the things in. Anyways, I am committed to not removing your statements as long as they represent the sources. Would appreciate if you did the same for mine. Thanks --65.94.99.123 (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I suggest you get an account and a username so that communication can be easier. More to the point, discussion of article content belongs on article talk pages, so I'll transfer this there. Achar Sva (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Refactoring talk pages

You need to double and treble check your work when doing that, as you didn't do at the shroud talk. Probably best if you dont do it at all. thanks -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

-Roxy the grumpy dog., I knew what I was doing, but thank you for your concern. Achar Sva (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You botched it, and didn't even bother to check, and still haven't. wow. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Try to be courteous, Roxy the grumpy dog. - being known as Roxy the Grumpy isn't exactly a badge of honour. Achar Sva (talk)

Nor is being incompetent. see WP:CIR. It applies to use of talk pages too. good grief. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

-Roxy the grumpy dog., if you can't control your temper you really should keep your remarks to yourself. Achar Sva (talk) 08:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

If you cant behave properly on talk pages you really shouldn't bother being here at all. read WP:NPA. Are you that arrogant that you cannot simply apologise for your error instead of refusing to acknowledge it? This is a collegiate effort to produce an encyclopeadia, and you aren't helping. The rest of your talk page illustrates this to some degree. The thing that dissappoints me most of all is that you made a very good point on this matter, which I expanded upon, and then you ruined it. Such a shame. I'll let you have the last word. Bye. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 08:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you want to spend so much time on my talk page Roxy the grumpy dog., but you need to ask yourself: why? You corrected an error I made somewhere, which is fine, but instead of leaving it that you felt the need to come and tell me about it. Why? Then when I responded you couldn't just let it go but had to keep on hectoring me: why? You have issues, my son, and you really need to consider them. Achar Sva (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Roxy the grumpy dog., a p.s - your issues have landed you in trouble before, as you know, but it's worth resurrecting (for once, it really is all about you):

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

[...]

Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.

[...]Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

(Wow, it was only last month! That's good advice about remaining collegial though, you need to bear it in mind - you can start by trying really, really hard to forebear from having the last word). Achar Sva (talk) 11:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

A discussion which may be of interest to you

Hello! At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Establishing a patristics and exegesis standard there is a discussion concerning the use of Church Fathers as sources on Wikipedia. Feel free to come and give your opinion! Veverve (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Question about reversions

Hi, @Achar Sva: Noticed you had edited several times since I tagged you a discussion on the Immaculate Conception talk page. Wanted to make sure you saw that I was seeking your input on reversion of sourced info there. I don't want to make any further moves on that article until I could touch base with you. If you see this little note, feel free to notify me here or on the talk page. Thanks! ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit - Important

Hey, so I understand that you are the one responsible for maintaining and keeping this line in the article called Perpetual Virginity, "This was because these moderate reformers were under pressure from others more radical than themselves who held Jesus to have been no more than a prophet: Mary's perpetual virginity thus became a guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ, despite its shaky scriptural foundations."

I didn't want to revert this, because I am sure that there will be an edit war, so I would bring my findings here.

Having read the cited source, some of what's written is wrong (eg the article says that "PV became a guarantee of the Incarnation of Christ", but the source, as I could see it, says that only Luther and Zwingli held to something like this.")

A lot of what's omitted is bad. (eg it mentions how denial of PV was tied to trying to suppress Catholic hymnals etc).

And there was nothing about the "shaky foundations in scripture" in the cited pages.

If I got anything wrong, forgive. --65.94.97.230 (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Eridu

See [2] Doug Weller talk 10:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I don't understand this. Achar Sva (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Just that the source used for the edits about Eridu and the Garden of Eden isn't a reliable source. Doug Weller talk 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Please, before you say "See talk page", please open a thread before.

Why do you tell me to see the talk page if you haven't published anything on it? Before saying to see the talk page please first open a thread and write something please. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hey, @Achar Sva: On several occasions now, I have noticed your edits to articles related to Christian topics have been of a frustrating character, devolving close to edit-warring more than once. While I understand and appreciate that you seek a very academic manner of sourcing, especially one that values the improvements present in modern peer-reviewed scholarship, this mission has repeatedly resulted in the deletion of properly- and reliably-sourced information. Of particular note is your repeated deletion of material from the page Immaculate Conception that came from Catholic Encyclopedia, a source long-established as a valuable and reliable resource and even the basis of a now-dormant project, Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Catholic Encyclopedia topics. I'm reaching out because I want to understand what your rationale for all these deletions are, especially considering you stopped engaging in discussion on the talk page. Let me know if there is anything I can help you with or if there are any matters you want to discuss. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Pbritti, you're correct that I want to use academic sources. There are, of course, exceptions - I have no problem with quoting papal bulls to illustrate the position of the papacy, for example - but even then I prefer a reliable secondary source. Such sources can usually be found - if a position of fact is significant, it will be in am modern secondary source. There's also the problem of relevance and readability, which is why I revert detailed references to individual Church fathers - we need to be as concise as possible. Achar Sva (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Thank you for taking the time to respond. In this instance, you are opposing a reliable source. Certainly older than some modern, sure, but perhaps the most comprehensive easily available. Unless there is more modern scholarship that actively dismisses the material contained in a reliable source, eschewing the original source is bad procedure and falls under WP:NOR. Regardless of whatever merit your stance has, you have on many articles repeatedly reverted and disengaged from discussion. You simply stopped responding to article talk page messages tagging you and continued reverting on Immaculate Conception. Please don't do that. In any case, thanks for dealing with other instances of primary-source abuse. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: I had not seen your recent reversions. I would encourage you to undo them. Otherwise, I will have to bring this to AN/EW. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Warning

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Since 12 May, you have reverted the same information sourced from CE five times. Slow-burn edit-warring is inappropriate, especially when multiple other editors disagree with your edits. Further reversions will involve a discussion elsewhere, and I would really appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with finality on the talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Perpetual virginity

Why do you think that it’s useless information? Though what the Odes teaches is not the full doctrine of Perpetual Virginity it possibly alludes to an elements of it, and the fact that the belief is still held by many Anglicans and Lutherans is important as the section gave the impression that all Protestants have abandoned the idea, though this is still common belief in these two sects. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Edits on Virgin birth of Jesus

In this diff here, you reverted my edit, here, which interpolated content from the article Mary, mother of Jesus#Later Christian writings and traditions, on the age of Mary at the time of her betrothal and the Annunciation. This changed my rewritten paragraph, which added sources, from this:

"Under Jewish law betrothal was only possible for minors, which for girls meant aged under twelve or prior to the first mense, whichever came first,{{sfn|Vermes|2006a|p=216}} meaning that Mary could have been betrothed at about 12.<ref name="Allison">Allison, Dale C., [https://books.google.com/books?id=m_OShrBh0I0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=betrothal&f=false ''Matthew: A Shorter Commentary'', p.12] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210705121433/https://books.google.com/books?id=m_OShrBh0I0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q=betrothal&f=false |date=5 July 2021 }} Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004 {{ISBN|0-567-08249-0}}</ref> However, Mary's age at the time of the betrothal remains distinctly unproven; some apocryphal accounts state that at the time of her betrothal to Joseph, Mary was 12–14 years old.<ref name="NewAdvent">{{cite web |url=https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm |title=Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Joseph |publisher=Newadvent.org |access-date=30 September 2013 |archive-date=27 June 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170627235620/https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>"

Back to this:

"Matthew 1:18 says that Mary was betrothed (engaged) to Joseph.{{sfn|Vermes|2006a|p=216}} Under Jewish law betrothal was only possible for minors, which for girls meant aged under twelve or prior to the first mense, whichever came first.{{sfn|Vermes|2006a|p=216}} We can thus take it that Mary was twelve years old or a little less, at the time of the events described in the gospels{{sfn|Vermes|2006b|p=72}}"

The statement that only apocryphal sources state Mary's age for definite, and that there is no consensus on how old Mary was at the time of her betrothal, has stood on Mary, mother of Jesus since 2011, with sourcing.

I will note that my addition did not remove the sources you added outright; nor did it remove the sourced statements on Jewish marriage law, which are valid points that still stand. (I could point out that your edit to 'restore' the content actually removed the sources I added.)

Yes, Jewish marriage law at the time saw that a girl could be betrothed at roughly age 12; but this does not mean that Mary was betrothed at age 12. No sources we have state for definite how old she was. To add what we can "assume" would be WP: SYNTHESIS. We can acknowledge the sources that give us context for the time, but we have to acknowledge that nothing is certainly known. And we certainly can't "therefore assume"; that's not our job.

Looking at your Talk page, I have to point out that you have a history of edit warring and problems with other editors in regards to editing pages on Christianity. At the end of the day, Mary's age is nowhere definitively proven, and even though we have context, context is not proof; that's a leap we cannot make on Wikipedia. Please consider this before the stack of edit warring notices on your Talk page turn into a topic ban; I'm sure this would not be the ideal outcome for you.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 10:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Ineffablebookkeeper, the proper place for discussion of article content is the article talk page, and I suggest you your concerns there. Achar Sva (talk) 06:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: My concerns are with yourself – and I don't know why you can't respond here. This isn't an issue of overall content that needs discussion with other editors, this is an issue of your reversal of my edit.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) ({{ping}} me!) 12:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ineffablebookkeeper: It's an article content matter, take it to the article talk page or drop it. Achar Sva (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If you come back to edit,

At Yahweh there is the source with no way of verifying what it is. I can't find it. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

October 2022

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Multiple times, you have improperly blanked sources that have already been addressed by other editors, sometimes directly in conversation with you. If you would like me to open a thread on any of the pages you have performed blankings on, please let me know! ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

DRN

I thought that you'd be interested in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Book of Daniel, since you chimed in about it at WP:RSN. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

The current consensus is that the Book of Daniel is Maccabean. This is expressed in, for example, McConville and Boda's Dictionary of the Old Testament, 2020 (the link will open at the relevant passage). Incidentally, our article does not assert truth - Wikipedia is not about truth, but about the balance of scholarly opinion.

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Achar Sva!

Happy New Year!

Achar Sva,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. You've been warned about removing reliable material cited from Catholic Encyclopedia before here. Don't do that again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC) Pbritti (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Give him some slack, since he is mostly right. He just wants to uphold a high academic standard for WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Surprised to see you defend someone breaking WP:CHOPSY. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I ought to note this is a final warning after seeing the deletion of the properly-attributed material from Jerome in Mary, mother of Jesus. You're right to desire actual academic sources and I commend you for finding them and inserting them; repeatedly deleting reliably-sourced historical facts and assertions from deeply important figures is behavior unbecoming to an editor of your experience, talent, and knowledge. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:00, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Pbritti , Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source by Wikipedia guidelines. It's over a century old and it's confessional: we need modern, unbiased sources from academics. Also, please calm down. Achar Sva (talk) 05:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Your dismissal of sources as "confessional" is a misinterpretation of WP:RS, your understanding of what constitutes bias is a misinterpretation of WP:NPOV, and your request for me to "calm down" reflects a misinterpretation of my actions. I have watched you spend the better part of a year delete properly sourced material with inaccurate or misleading edit summaries. I recognize your talent and sincerity in this project, and have mostly left you unwarned. It's been too many times now, though, and this is a final warning. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Then please take me to ANI. Achar Sva (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

No, but if you do something out of policy like these violations again, I will. Thanks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Since I have no intention of changing, you should probably just go to ANI. Achar Sva (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Not how this works; consider changing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You can file a case here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

ANI = Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (WP:ANI) Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You're the one with a grievance, it's up to you to file at ANI. Achar Sva (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Editing restriction

Hello Achar Sva. This is to inform you that per community consensus in this discussion, you are now subject to the following editing restriction:

When Achar Sva removes sourced text from an article (including edits which replace sourced text or move it to another place in the article) and that removal gets reverted, they may not remove it again without gaining consensus for the removal at the article talk page or any other appropriate venue. This restriction may be appealed at WP:AN after six months.

You must comply with this editing restriction, as any violations may result in escalating blocks. The exceptions to your restriction are listed at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans. For information about appeals, see Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals of bans imposed by the community. I have logged the sanction at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Wikipedia community#Achar Sva. If you have any questions about your editing restriction, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Restriction violation

You violated your editing restriction with this edit. This is a courtesy warning as this is the only full violation I have witnessed you perform in the four months this restriction has been active. However, I will report further violations and pursue further action if needed. Please comply with your editing restriction and please contact Extraordinary Wit if you require clarification. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

You violated your editing restriction again with this edit. Due to your editing restriction, insisting that others start a discussion on your behalf is unacceptable; reverting edits like those linked here in order to force discussion is explicitly prohibited. Any further violations will most likely result in a block. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Please explain this apparent violation of your editing restriction. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit violated your editing restriction. Please refrain from removing content that comes from highly reliable and contending that viewpoints are fringe without evidence. Please make your case on a talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

talk: thank you for your concern, but I have no current restrictions. Achar Sva (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violations of your editing restriction. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)