User talk:Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez

Welcome!

Hello, Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Filioque. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Pbritti (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023

Hello Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez! Your additions to Filioque have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, I wasn't aware that this text could violate copyright (I got it from a public domain, then I'm informed that it was copyed from a forum). I tryed to modificate it this time Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding blogs and unsourced info

Adding unreliable blogs and unsourced info violates Wikipedia's policies. See WP:RS, WP:BLOG and WP:V. Veverve (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't added unreliable blogs, remembering that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves

Then, I was quoting blogs or videos from Dr Daniel J. Vecchio, who is acredited for Philosophy and Religious Studies https://www.vvc.edu/daniel-vecchio https://vvc.academia.edu/DanielVecchio/CurriculumVitae

and Suan Sonna, who for now has published material

https://independent.academia.edu/SuanSonna https://www.catholic.com/profile/suan-sonna

Which can be justified to be quoted in that way if they're subject-matter experts.

However, I will try to improve my sources, that day I was very busy. Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Academicedu, most of that is not actually published so far as I can see. Just posted there. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 21:08, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Saint Peter, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. The same applies to your edits to Filioque. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A provost (Scott Stripling} at a Bible seminary located in an equestrian center is not a reliably published source

We need peer reviewed articles for archaeology. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Three Petrine Sees has been accepted

Three Petrine Sees, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

AntientNestor (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Three Petrine Sees (April 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Mattdaviesfsic were:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

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

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Three Petrine Sees and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your edit to Sola scriptura has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Three Petrine Sees

Hello, Ricolas Inmaduro Martínez. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Three Petrine Sees".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 14:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]