User talk:Damián A. Fernández Beanato

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nomination of Limiting case (philosophy of science) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Limiting case (philosophy of science) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limiting case (philosophy of science) 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. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I was right and the article was kept. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Colonization of Mars, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. It is disruptive to insist on including unnecessary links. There is not the slightest doubt that a reader would be able to interpret the word "planets" in context. The guidelines point out that this isn't an appropriate clarification, but that should be obvious anyway. andy (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

This official-looking post appears to be the view of at least one Wikipedian and has been answered in his/her Talk page. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
FYI It's official looking because it uses a standard Wikipedia warning template. andy (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your breaking images....[edit]

Hi, you're breaking a lot of images!

I'm noticing lots of articles pop up in Category:Articles with missing files of type ".... congressional district" and they have images broken by your edits! Such as I fixed Kentucky's 3rd congressional district with these edits [1].

Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Answered in the user's talkpage. --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 13:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is from Prophecy of the Popes (talk) which was vandalized by DeCausa[edit]

I'll proceed with the assumption that both of you are editors interested in fixing this. As to explanation, that is precisely what this is about. Why hasn't wikipedia gotten it right? Because of the pillars? Or because of the implicit support of wikipedia guidelines that information will be "mercilessly edited (re-redited, etc.)"? For those who do violate editing, the pillars can be a means to their end if they remain in error and are content with that, all the while having sufficient administrative powers to do so, all the while being dishonest, for whatever reason. In the realm of scientific possibility, it could be that wikipedia will never get those two slots right. But then again, in that same realm, it could. There is so much positive confirmation in the article already as to the list of names, this, too, can be a means of dishonest end. Look at it this way for a moment, in the same realm of possibility. There has been so much intrigue against one or both of the actual persons concerning those two slots, that it has been difficult for wikipedia to provide an accurate report. If this were the case, based on that positive confirmation, you could more likely than not expect to hear from one or both of them in regards to this. It could be that for wikipedia to provide this accurate information it could only arrive at such a veracity from one or both, and no others. The difficulty with the pillars is that they don't necessarily need to respect prophecy when in the hands of dishonest editors. Then again, even a respectable prophet of renown can err. The only exception to this is the Doctrine of Infallibilty, where matters of faith and morals by the Pontiff are free from error, even if the Pontiff himself is the worst editor at wikipedia. The same law concerning prophets applies, though. If the Pontiff deliberately apostasizes and speaks words which God has not given him, such Pontiff is answerable to God alone. The matter becomes more complex when editorship can be entrusted to anyone on-line. Here we are dealing with a prophecy from the 12th century, before the Doctrine of Infallibilty was formulated as it is today. But integrity is no less an issue or concern, all the same. At least it should be. So at best, I can provide you, as editors, with the facts, and pray with you that you make the proper response as to providing accurate data. Petrus Romanus is a name in the prophecy given as was all of Old Testament prophecy in that the Holy Spirit imparts such knowledge to the prophet, but we now have this gift of prophecy through the hands of Jesus Christ, Who has sent this knowledge in accord with the New and Everlasting Covenant. Concerning the seriousness of reporting falsely and leading another astray, we are reminded by Him that for any of us to do so is so grave an error that it would be better that one tie a millstone around ones neck and drown oneself in the depths of the sea. When I first edited the Petrus Romanus slot some years back, I thought it a great thing that I was adding to the resevoir of information here at wikipedia. It still is a great thing, but so is the gravity of error upon those who abused such simple information. If I were to provide you with similar information concerning Gloria Olivae, could I expect anything better? I can provide you with a few more details and then allow you to consider the prayer. Petrus Romanus is also the king of Daniel 11:21, who was struck by Gloria Olivae. And Petrus Romanus did strike Gloria Olivae. This is prophesied in the Douay-Rheims Holy Bible. In one way, shape, or form, or another, the striking of the king of Daniel 11:21 by Romans and Galleys, and the return with indignation, has been fulfilled. As I was the first struck, and as wikipedia continues to do so, save for your timely concern, I'm going to take a break. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be better if I only address you at this point concerning the errors at the article and the talk page, as DeCausa, although efforting to use self promotion of a lawyer living in London, is only a filthy Arab muslim jihadist/Russian atheistic communist trying to launch a nuclear attack upon London. I'll remind you of something although referenced by DeCausa but of which DeCausa has failed to follow - it concerns what wikipedia is not, "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles." DeCausa is not interested in improving the article, only ruining it. DeCausa's only reason for being at wikipedia is to give fellow jihadists/scumbags some cover. It was well that I began addressing the error with regard to both your reply and DeCausa's for it has brought to light the difference between you and DeCausa. You have shown yourself to be a better editor than DeCausa, so any improvement at this point will necessarily exclude the vandal DeCausa, but not necessarily DeCausa's attack. I have brought your question back to your talk page that I may answer it more directly. I am only addressing the two errors in the list as regards the incorrect names listed for "Gloria Olivae" and "Petrus Romanus".

Can you explain yourself? Are you a sedevacantist or a supporter or other claimants to the papacy? --Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 09:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am Petrus Romanus. I do not consider myself a sedevacantist per se, but that would depend upon your definition. I have come through three wombs in God's work with me. The first was as Elijah of the Old Testament, then as John (the Baptist) in the New, and now I have been resurrected through yet another womb unto the kingship of that personage of Daniel 11:3-4 (amongst other references). Such a tri-partite rendering is in conformity with the New Catholic Cateshism (cf. §783-786), though all others will only come through two wombs, at most, Christ coming only through one, even though He said that the things coming upon the world now are as the pangs of labor. But in order for Christ to have an angel to prepare his way, such births/rebirths have been of God's own choosing. The reality of my being resurrected and a king simultaneously is shown in the various translations of the Holy Bible throughout the millenia when one reads in that same prophetic book of Daniel the words, "he shall increase glory". Gloria Olivae has been to Rome in his studying to be a priest. He is now His Holiness, this is also confirmable through 16th prophecy. Such a study of prophecy will also show that both Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus were elected together, viz. "at the same time", on no later than the first day of the Conclave which produced Cardinal Ratzinger as "Benedict XVI". The old fogeys just haven't been able to communicate with Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus. Gloria Olivae and Petrus Romanus have what could be called a long history together, but because of proud terrorists such as DeCausa, there is a faction which only seeks to control the Papacy for self gain. Decausa is a slave to such recklessness. There was a day when Gloria Olivae struck my head with a book. Not long after that I shot one round from a .22 caliber revolver into him. I was approximately 8 years of age at the time. As there is prophecy that a Pontiff would die a martyr, both John Paul II and Gloria Olivae could be seen to fulfill that. (and when it comes to being shot, such a conclusion would also apply to me, however, I am resurrected, never to die again) Such necessary conflict to fulfill the prophecy in Daniel 11:30 does not detract from the good which Gloria Olivae has done, nor this effort to have wikipedia provide the right information, which I consider to be a good thing, not a bad thing. In light of such worthless people as DeCausa seeking only ruination upon surrounding humanity, a resolution of integrity is of the utmost importance. Instead of giving the necessary time and study in order to improve the article, editors have opted to treat the article with disregard, citing various reasons, none of which have a basis in sound thinking. In regards to this improvement in the article "Prophecy of the Popes", such frivolous treatment only exposes morons, doling their absurdities of philosophy without using the available asset of critical thinking, all the while hiding behind false accusation in citing wikipedia policy, none of which they follow themselves. It is understandable that going into depth concerning these two names might seem like a forum, but currently all editors are failing, dismissing all guidelines, breaking all the rules. It is more like a trial than a forum, with wikipedia being the sole perjurer, two counts. There exists prophecy concerning this as regards Our Lady of the Nations. As the front end of this article suffers from such greedy manipulators, the talk page is the place to settle the score. ~~Prophet of the Most High~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of caliphs of ISIL listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of caliphs of ISIL. Since you had some involvement with the List of caliphs of ISIL redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)