Jump to content

User talk:Theologian81sp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theologian81sp (talk | contribs) at 09:52, 26 July 2021 (→Request for removing the block: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Hello, Theologian81sp, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Freemasonry in the Roman Catholic Church

A tag has been placed on Category:Freemasonry in the Roman Catholic Church indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening @Liz:, thank you for letting me know. I've given a "concise reply" in the Tea House. More briefly, I've courtesy asked the aid of other users to make a cross between Category:Freemaons and one or more subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic Church. This would allow WP not to have an empty category. I modestly think the reasons of its notability can0t be further shortened.Best regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo
Hello! Theologian81sp, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 15:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German Satanists

A tag has been placed on Category:German Satanists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

good evening @Liz:, thanks for the notification. I will open a tpic in Categories for discussion, as suggested. The category has now become empty since Herman Schell has been removed from it. I modestly disagree with this decision and think there will robly exist other WP biographies to be connected to this category. Hope to find them in a short time. Theologian81sp (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I saw nothing in the article which reliably asserted that the person was a Satanist. Categorizing them as such without substantive evidence seems inappropriate. I have deleted the now-empty category, but there is nothing preventing it being recreated if there is ever genuine evidence of this or other people being identified as such. And (to explain further) that doesn't mean your own opinion or interpretation of whether someone was a Satanist, but Reliable Sources published by themselves or statements by other by mainstream experts to that effect, and which are not in themselves regarded as crank theories or guesswork. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Thule Society. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You can't go restoring contested content and sources until there is a consensus to do so. Try to be more consise in your talk page posts. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 06:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea:, thanks for your advice. But it was an open discussion with anyone whoi wants to contribute to the article Thule Society. It was not a private discussion between me and another WP editor. Unavoidably, some passages dealed with my edits and his rollbacks.Thanks agains.Have a good day in the holy Name of the Lord Jesus Christ God, Theologian81sp (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been unclear – sorry about that. As you say, it is not a closed discussion, but that is in fact not relevant. You had added content to the article, and it was removed by another editor who objected to its restoration. That is why you need to discuss on the article talk page until you reach a consensus allowing you to restore the content; you can't restore it in the middle of the ongoing discussion. Since the other editor is presenting arguments based on Wikipedia policy concerning Spence and Ross and why they can't be used as sources or discussed without contextualisation, it is in fact disruptive to restore that content without consensus in favour of doing so. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning @Bonadea:, my arguments concerns WP policies too. Discussion is well contextualized on five rows and as many sources. Questined sourced are: a recent documentary produced in the 2010s by the historician Richard B. Spence, an academic paper (Christopher Partridge, Routledge), with a version of the primary source, the 1940 Lewis Spence's book Occult Causes of the Present War), a PhD dissertation stored on a .gov website (about the Thuile's symbol), a monography (Colin A. Ross, Toronto University Press), an histirocal paper of an Indian religious leader (Swami Satchidanand, academia.edu). All of them are freely available on the web and have a WP biography of the author, who thus has a WP:notability. I couldn't do much better at the moment.
The other editor did't present a single alternative source. And I am not acknowledged of any ban on professors Spence and Ross. Let me say that one who say "Spence's book tells the reader that Satan and Lucifer are real entities" as if it must be pure fantasy and an invented story. This means also not to repsect WP policies.
What is the WP:notability for those WP:reliable sources? f the Prince of World and angel named Satan did exist and Nazi worshiped him, then a similar movemnt, having the same symbols and practicizing rituals can reach the same consensus again, since the angel and his will are immutable as well as his power on the human history. But it is also relvant for what happened to the Thule Society. Nazi worshipers called Satan as the the Power. meaning he was the first cause of their massive consensus throgh his work of temptation o the free will and the political ideas of people.
The belief in the real existence of Satan and of his being the "Prince of the World" (John 14,30) belong to the shared and common knowledge of a high number of people. We can't fully omit a so relevant argument, just waiting for counter-arguments will be made available. When someone will demonstrate the opposite, then it will be cited in the WP article. It is what is noramlly done in any article, and I can't undertand why an open project is giving some favours to the Synagogue of Satan, the Freemaosnry to which the Thulr Society belonged to. This may be automatically infered by the identity: Satanism = Synagogue of Satan = Freemasonry. It is sourced by the saint Pope Saint Pius X in the encyclical Etsi multa luctuosa.Regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 08:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The place to discuss this is Talk:Thule Society. When you propose an addition to an article and it is contested, the onus is on you to show why it is in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines (not in accordance with the Bible, or the Pope, or the personal religious beliefs of any group of people). There is no onus on the editors who argue against the inclusion of the content to provide an "alternative source", and indeed, I don't even understand what function such a source would fill. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that at least two previous accounts of yours, User:Micheledisaveriosp and User:Philosopher81sp, have been globally locked, and that both of them edited in the exact same problematic way. There are detailed explanations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines around reliable sources, verifiability, and fringe standpoints, among other things, on your previous user talk page User talk:Philosopher81sp/Archive1. You have also been made aware of discretionary sanctions regarding fringe science. I have reverted your most recent post to Talk:Thule Society as it was only partly related to the article. --bonadea contributions talk 10:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can forecast the conclusion. Thule Society is an historical WP article, nota ascientific one. Angels are part of most of religions and can be named in a historical or biographical article. About the previous accounts, I had only the two you have mentioned. The first of them, Micheledisaveriosp, was closed on my request and I created the second which was blocked on the Italian version and then globally. And I returned on WP because I dind't stop to believe in the project. The problem is not my neutral way of writing, but the fact that angels, Satanism and their link with Nazism, for example, are totally banned from WP, despit a lot of academic sources that have been produced, without any counter-argument corrobaorated by as much WP:reliable sources.Theologian81sp (talk) 11:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Sant'Angelo in Pescheria. As for your post in the article talk page, you keep using the blatantly inappropriate term "synagogue of Satan" about Freemasons. Do not use that term again on any Wikipedia pages. bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: this is against WP:no censorship. I've justified a categorization without adding to the main article a series of source s which are not WP:reliable.But if they are evaluated with the images of a Greek Temple, they perfectly concern the Synagogue of Satan. I forgot to add the direct link to the encyclical Etsi multa luctuosa that I've linked more times, even it was the main source to be added. Regards,Theologian81sp (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Sant'Angelo in Pescheria. Stop using Wikipedia to promote your personal point of view. bonadea contributions talk 15:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for removing the block

Good evening @Bonadea:, as you have courtesy suggested in this user talk, I would like to ask the removal of the block and and to constructively contribute to the encyclopedia again. Thanks in advance for any eventual aid in this specific aspect. Regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to appeal your block, you need to follow the instructions in the block notice above. You don't need to ping me; I am not an administrator so I couldn't remove your blocks anyway. But note that you need to appeal from your oldest account. --bonadea contributions talk 14:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Theologian81sp (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thanks bonadea, but I am not able to start from my oldest account. Both Micheledisaverio81sp and Philosopher81sp weren't linked to my personal e-mail and I've forgotten the related passwords. Micheledisaverio81sp was blocked under a my request to an en:WP administrator, hence there wasn't a violation of any WP policy. Some months later, I created Philosopher81sp which was closed in the Italian version of the project for an issue risen with an Italian WP:administrator or bureaucrat, and then it was extended globally. I don't remember the article and his username now.

Possibly, it was Hipergiow or something similar.

The latter account, Theologian981sp, was closed for the prohibition to use the expression "Synagogue of Satan" with regards to the Satanist Freemasonry. In my opinion, it is simply true and it find a WP:reliable source in the encyclical Etsi multa of Pope Saint Pius X, as it was said for more times. I don't think it bumps into WP:NPOV, given that worshipers of Satan won't find it in a negative or pejorative meaning.
The exclusion from the Italian WP originated from a similar religious matter: there was an article with an equivalent and clearly offensive expression against God and the Christian faith. I pacifically tried to discuss it in the talk page, but my edits continued to be reverted. Then I replied consequently in the questioned article and in the administrator/bureaucrat personal talk page.

Let me say that the two projects are reciprocally independent. Therefore, for what concerns the English version, the unique account blocked and to be unblocked is Theologian81sp. As I said previously, the closure of the account Micheledisaveriosp was a my request, while Philosopher81sp was an extension of the Italian block. In those days, I've made multiple constructive contributions with academic sources, all of which are freely available on the web and provided with full bibliographical indications, ranging in various matters. In the last days, there have been the opportunity/necessity to open some discussion topics -as it results here-, but I would like to point out that even in the previous weeks I've never stopped to contribute in a careful and anonymous way. I would like to apologize for the rambling topic, but the situation related three diferent and consecutive accounts was not so easy to be explained. I've never used two WP accounts at the same time.

So, I hope the account will be unblocked at least on en:WP. This topic makes me a bit optimist, but any decision is not automatic and predictable. Hope that someone will want in this critical point of my Wikipedian path. I hope so with all my heart. Thanks for your courtesy attention. Regards, Theologian81sp (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Thanks bonadea, but I am not able to start from my oldest account. Both ''Micheledisaverio81sp'' and ''Philosopher81sp'' weren't linked to my personal e-mail and I've forgotten the related passwords. ''Micheledisaverio81sp'' was blocked under a my request to an en:WP administrator, hence there wasn't a violation of any WP policy. Some months later, I created ''Philosopher81sp'' which was closed in the Italian version of the project for an issue risen with an Italian WP:administrator or bureaucrat, and then it was extended globally. I don't remember the article and his username now. Possibly, it was Hipergiow or something similar. The latter account, ''Theologian981sp'', was closed for the prohibition to use the expression "Synagogue of Satan" with regards to the Satanist Freemasonry. In my opinion, it is simply true and it find a [[WP:reliable source]] in the encyclical ''[https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-etsi-multa-21-novembre-1873.html Etsi multa]'' of Pope Saint Pius X, as it was said for more times. I don't think it bumps into [[WP:NPOV]], given that worshipers of Satan won't find it in a negative or pejorative meaning. <br /> The exclusion from the Italian WP originated from a similar religious matter: there was an article with an equivalent and clearly offensive expression against God and the Christian faith. I pacifically tried to discuss it in the talk page, but my edits continued to be reverted. Then I replied consequently in the questioned article and in the administrator/bureaucrat personal talk page. Let me say that the two projects are reciprocally independent. Therefore, for what concerns the English version, the unique account blocked and to be unblocked is ''Theologian81sp''. As I said previously, the closure of the account ''Micheledisaveriosp'' was a my request, while ''Philosopher81sp'' was an extension of the Italian block. In those days, I've made multiple constructive contributions with academic sources, all of which are freely available on the web and provided with full bibliographical indications, ranging in various matters. In the last days, there have been the opportunity/necessity to open some discussion topics -as it results [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.223.68.239 here]-, but I would like to point out that even in the previous weeks I've never stopped to contribute in a careful and anonymous way. I would like to apologize for the rambling topic, but the situation related three diferent and consecutive accounts was not so easy to be explained. I've ''never'' used two WP accounts at the same time. <br /> So, I hope the account will be unblocked at least on en:WP. [[Talk:Teachings and philosophy of Swami Vivekananda#Recent changes|This topic]] makes me a bit optimist, but any decision is not automatic and predictable. Hope that someone will want in this critical point of my Wikipedian path. I hope so with all my heart. Thanks for your courtesy attention. Regards, [[User:Theologian81sp|Theologian81sp]] ([[User talk:Theologian81sp#top|talk]]) 14:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Thanks bonadea, but I am not able to start from my oldest account. Both ''Micheledisaverio81sp'' and ''Philosopher81sp'' weren't linked to my personal e-mail and I've forgotten the related passwords. ''Micheledisaverio81sp'' was blocked under a my request to an en:WP administrator, hence there wasn't a violation of any WP policy. Some months later, I created ''Philosopher81sp'' which was closed in the Italian version of the project for an issue risen with an Italian WP:administrator or bureaucrat, and then it was extended globally. I don't remember the article and his username now. Possibly, it was Hipergiow or something similar. The latter account, ''Theologian981sp'', was closed for the prohibition to use the expression "Synagogue of Satan" with regards to the Satanist Freemasonry. In my opinion, it is simply true and it find a [[WP:reliable source]] in the encyclical ''[https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-etsi-multa-21-novembre-1873.html Etsi multa]'' of Pope Saint Pius X, as it was said for more times. I don't think it bumps into [[WP:NPOV]], given that worshipers of Satan won't find it in a negative or pejorative meaning. <br /> The exclusion from the Italian WP originated from a similar religious matter: there was an article with an equivalent and clearly offensive expression against God and the Christian faith. I pacifically tried to discuss it in the talk page, but my edits continued to be reverted. Then I replied consequently in the questioned article and in the administrator/bureaucrat personal talk page. Let me say that the two projects are reciprocally independent. Therefore, for what concerns the English version, the unique account blocked and to be unblocked is ''Theologian81sp''. As I said previously, the closure of the account ''Micheledisaveriosp'' was a my request, while ''Philosopher81sp'' was an extension of the Italian block. In those days, I've made multiple constructive contributions with academic sources, all of which are freely available on the web and provided with full bibliographical indications, ranging in various matters. In the last days, there have been the opportunity/necessity to open some discussion topics -as it results [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.223.68.239 here]-, but I would like to point out that even in the previous weeks I've never stopped to contribute in a careful and anonymous way. I would like to apologize for the rambling topic, but the situation related three diferent and consecutive accounts was not so easy to be explained. I've ''never'' used two WP accounts at the same time. <br /> So, I hope the account will be unblocked at least on en:WP. [[Talk:Teachings and philosophy of Swami Vivekananda#Recent changes|This topic]] makes me a bit optimist, but any decision is not automatic and predictable. Hope that someone will want in this critical point of my Wikipedian path. I hope so with all my heart. Thanks for your courtesy attention. Regards, [[User:Theologian81sp|Theologian81sp]] ([[User talk:Theologian81sp#top|talk]]) 14:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Thanks bonadea, but I am not able to start from my oldest account. Both ''Micheledisaverio81sp'' and ''Philosopher81sp'' weren't linked to my personal e-mail and I've forgotten the related passwords. ''Micheledisaverio81sp'' was blocked under a my request to an en:WP administrator, hence there wasn't a violation of any WP policy. Some months later, I created ''Philosopher81sp'' which was closed in the Italian version of the project for an issue risen with an Italian WP:administrator or bureaucrat, and then it was extended globally. I don't remember the article and his username now. Possibly, it was Hipergiow or something similar. The latter account, ''Theologian981sp'', was closed for the prohibition to use the expression "Synagogue of Satan" with regards to the Satanist Freemasonry. In my opinion, it is simply true and it find a [[WP:reliable source]] in the encyclical ''[https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-ix/it/documents/enciclica-etsi-multa-21-novembre-1873.html Etsi multa]'' of Pope Saint Pius X, as it was said for more times. I don't think it bumps into [[WP:NPOV]], given that worshipers of Satan won't find it in a negative or pejorative meaning. <br /> The exclusion from the Italian WP originated from a similar religious matter: there was an article with an equivalent and clearly offensive expression against God and the Christian faith. I pacifically tried to discuss it in the talk page, but my edits continued to be reverted. Then I replied consequently in the questioned article and in the administrator/bureaucrat personal talk page. Let me say that the two projects are reciprocally independent. Therefore, for what concerns the English version, the unique account blocked and to be unblocked is ''Theologian81sp''. As I said previously, the closure of the account ''Micheledisaveriosp'' was a my request, while ''Philosopher81sp'' was an extension of the Italian block. In those days, I've made multiple constructive contributions with academic sources, all of which are freely available on the web and provided with full bibliographical indications, ranging in various matters. In the last days, there have been the opportunity/necessity to open some discussion topics -as it results [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:84.223.68.239 here]-, but I would like to point out that even in the previous weeks I've never stopped to contribute in a careful and anonymous way. I would like to apologize for the rambling topic, but the situation related three diferent and consecutive accounts was not so easy to be explained. I've ''never'' used two WP accounts at the same time. <br /> So, I hope the account will be unblocked at least on en:WP. [[Talk:Teachings and philosophy of Swami Vivekananda#Recent changes|This topic]] makes me a bit optimist, but any decision is not automatic and predictable. Hope that someone will want in this critical point of my Wikipedian path. I hope so with all my heart. Thanks for your courtesy attention. Regards, [[User:Theologian81sp|Theologian81sp]] ([[User talk:Theologian81sp#top|talk]]) 14:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}


To the reviewing admin: since the block on 11 July, Theologian81sp has edited Wikipedia using (at least) the following IPs; one diff for each IP, but all of them were used for multiple edits:

See also User talk:84.223.68.239, where Theologian81sp seemed to understand that editing as an IP is not allowed for a blocked user. That conversation was on 21 July, so two of the IPs above were used to edit after it. --bonadea contributions talk 15:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also:
--Dread83 (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, ignore my request. Have a good day.Theologian81sp (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Theologian81sp&oldid=1035553860"