User talk:Biblelight

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

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Biblelight! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing!  Marlith (Talk)  03:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

You're being discussed at the 3RR noticeboard[edit]

Hello Biblelight. Please see this section at WP:AN3. This is a noticeboard which deals with complaints about edit warring. Since, in your recent history, you have several times reverted changes made by others, and you have left edit summaries with the phrase 'Removed rubbish', your attention to this matter is requested. Persistent edit warriors may be blocked from editing. Seeking consensus on Talk pages is a wiser course. You may add your own response to the complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

policy[edit]

I told you last time you were around and it appears I have to tell you again - you really need to brush up on policy. What you were trying to insert last time and what you are trying to insert now is in violation of several policies and guidlines including but not limited to WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, WP:R, and WP:V. Do not think that I am trying to silence you. I am not. You are simply ignoring the rules in place. Anyone's going to revert you because of this. I just happened to get to it first. As long as you continue to edit the article in gross violation of the guidlines cited above, your additions will remain unacceptable.Farsight001 (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

An IP shows up for a day, adds the exact same kind of material you are and you expect me to believe it's not you? You insult my intelligence.Farsight001 (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The material is freely available to anyone in the Wikipedia history pages, and there is even more in the 666 page on my web site, which has had over 4,000 visits in the last 60 days. I have invited, and will continue to invite other Adventists to begin contributing to Wikipedia, and to use the documentation on my web site. So yes, it will indeed sound exactly like me. I am even considering putting additional pages on my site in wiki format so they can be easily copied and pasted into Wikipedia articles by my readers, even total novices. Biblelight (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well if what you are doing is in fact inviting your fans to make the same edits you are doing, then that is an instantly and indefinitely blockable offense. Recruiting others to do your bidding is called meatpuppetry here, and it is just another of the dozens of rules you're openly and willingly violating. Thank you for openly admitting to it, too. That'll help lots. :) Farsight001 (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As to what is termed "meatpuppets", I was totally unaware there was such a rule. Would Wikipedia prefer that I actively discourage people from contributing there, and tell them to avoid it like the plague because of its admitted low regard for documented truth? Hmmm. Apparently so. Easily done, and maybe more appropriate. O.K. I recant. I will do that to keep Wikipedia happy and stay within their rules. No more promoting Wikipedia!

Again, in the last 60 days over 4000 people have visited my web page on Vicarius Filii Dei, which is the most comprehensive and up to date page on the topic on the web. My point in telling you that was this: whether you allow me to contribute to Wikipedia or not, there are literally thousands of people with access to the truth that you refuse to allow, and even without my help or urging, they will soon be spreading this information all over the web, not just on Wikipedia. As I said before, your acting as a gate guard on Wikipedia is an act of utter futility. You are guarding an empty barn. The truth is already out, and the documentation I have is extensive and verifiable. If it were not the case, you would not hesitate to demonstrate it to be erroneous on Wikipedia.

I knew full well that opposing views dominate the articles I would try to edit. So, let me explain to you exactly what is going on. I never expected that my contributions to Wikipedia would remain in the active articles. I simply wanted to demonstrate for my readers that you are unable to deal with the documented historical facts on a scholarly level. Anyone can easily see that by comparing the undeniable quality and veracity of what I have been posting to the lame pages you are so diligently protecting. As I see it, you have two options: allow my contributions to stay on Wikipedia, and try to deal with them on an intellectual level, which I think will improve Wikipedia, or continue to censor them, and prove to everybody that you know what I am posting is the irrefutable truth. Prove me wrong in a scholarly manner, or acknowledge I am right by censorship. The choice is yours to make. Biblelight (talk) 04:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying that it is the truth that I censor. Why then, do you get 4000 visits in 60 days, whereas places like catholic.com and Jimmy akin's blog get 4000 visits in an hour? And at 66.6(oh noes!) visits to your website a day out of 17 MILLION SDAs, you think it's a big deal why?
Why do you call it truth when the title was a later addition to the donation? Why do you call it truth when the title refers specifically to Peter and no one else? Why do you call it truth when the title is in the margin of the donation like a side note? Why call it truth when the popes were denying it as a title even before the SDA church existed? And even more important - why are all of these facts strangely absent from your edits to the article and from your website? How can you call it truth when you are clearly leaving out very important information? How can you call it scholarship when you present only one side?
As for my reverts - they had absolutely ZERO to do with the information contained within. It was your excruciatingly POV tone rife with facts presented in a misleading way and information not supported by your citations. I have tried to explain this to you over and over and over again and you will not listen. This is an encyclopedia. Write like an encyclopedia. Source like an encyclopedia. Your additions read like they were right off your website. Add the info, but first you need to learn how to do so properly - to leave your bias behind when you edit. You say I was trying to censor. Why then did I initially make it very clear that I wanted to discuss your additions with you? And why is it that you simply complained and re-added your facts, continuing to leave them mysteriously absent of important information? And why aren't I trying to also censor the Vatican archives and the Catholic encyclopedia? I have no issue with those mentions of it. If anyone was censoring anything, (and neither of us were) it was you for your refusal to abide by NPOV and add the other facts that you know in the back of your mind completely undo and demolish your stance.
Did you notice that when this happened last time, just after you stopped for a while, someone else edited your info back in, but fixed its neutrality and I let it stay at Seventh-day Adventist eschatology? And just now someone made an edit to Donation of Constantine that put some of your info back in in a neutral way which I also have no problem with? You have, what we call in the psych world, a persecution complex. It's actually extremely common among Christians for some reason.
You remind me of another user a while back who kept editing the Alberto Rivera article to add information intended to "expose" the truth. The problem is that his additions were not supported by his cites, the images he was trying to add were absolutely huge, and he erased every tidbit of well sourced counter evidence. When I explained those reasons for my reverts, he immediately went off on how I was supposedly censoring the article. Has it never occurred to you that there might actually be something wrong with your edits? That you really do have some major improvements to make before you add such info? I work with a couple of Seventh Day Adventists. They are wonderful and smart people and even they would never let your edits fly.
I mean...have you ever even read the donation?Farsight001 (talk) 08:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Why do you call it truth when the title was a later addition to the donation?

Where is this "fact" to be found on Wikipedia?
Is this "fact" in the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filli Dei? No.
Is this "fact" in the Wikipedia article on Number of the Beast? No.
Where is this "fact" to be found on the internet?

2. Why do you call it truth when the title refers specifically to Peter and no one else?

Is it mentioned in Wikipedia that the title appeared in the letter of Leo IX asserting papal primacy? No.
Is this fact in the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filli Dei? No.
Is this fact in the Wikipedia article on Number of the Beast? No.
Is it documented? Yes. Abundantly.
Did Agostino Trionfo apply the title to the Papacy? Yes.
Is it documented? Yes. Abundantly.
Is this fact in the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filli Dei? No.
Is this fact in the Wikipedia article on Number of the Beast? No.
Is that fact on Wikipedia? No.
How long was Summa printed, and how many editions were printed? Is that on Wikipedia? No.
Did Pope Paul VI apply the title to both himself and all successors of Peter? Yes.
Is it documented? Yes.
Is this fact in the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filli Dei? No.
Is this fact in the Wikipedia article on Number of the Beast? No.
Is this fact on Wikipedia? No.

3. Why do you call it truth when the title is in the margin of the donation like a side note?

Where is this "fact" to be found on Wikipedia?
Is this "fact" in the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filli Dei? No.
Is this "fact" in the Wikipedia article on Number of the Beast? No.
Where is this "fact" to be found on the internet?
There are photos of a 16th century copy of the donation on the Vatican's Secret Archive site.
Is the title in the margin of the donation like a side note? No, it is not.
Is this Vatican copy of the Donation mentioned in Wikipedia? No, it is not.

4. Why call it truth when the popes were denying it as a title even before the SDA church existed?

Where is this "fact" to be found on Wikipedia?
Is this "fact" in the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filli Dei? No.
Is this "fact" in the Wikipedia article on Number of the Beast? No.
Where is this "fact" to be found on the internet?
Exactly what Popes made this denial? In what documents? When?

5. And even more important - why are all of these facts strangely absent from your edits to the article and from your website?

The "facts" that you assert are not on Wikipedia, or any where else on the Internet as far as I know.

6. How can you call it truth when you are clearly leaving out very important information?

That is a completely undocumented allegation.

7. How can you call it scholarship when you present only one side?

That is a completely undocumented allegation, your phantom "facts" are not to be found.
You will not allow me to present my many documented facts as mentioned above.
Let me see you post the whole truth about the Donation on Wikipedia.
Let me see you post the whole truth about Leo IX and his offical letter on Wikipedia.
Let me see you post the whole truth about Trionfo's Summa on Wikipedia.
Let me see you post the whole truth about Paul VI and his offficial use of the title on Wikipedia.
Does the Wikipedia article on Vicarius Filii Dei say:
"Other than the forged Donation of Constantine no primary source evidence exists to suggest the existence of such a title for the Pope." Yes.
Is this true? No, it is not.
That is one example of what you guard so zealously.

Biblelight (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

8. Why then, do you get 4000 visits in 60 days, whereas places like catholic.com and Jimmy akin's blog get 4000 visits in an hour? And at 66.6(oh noes!) visits to your website a day out of 17 MILLION SDAs, you think it's a big deal why?

That one page has had 4000 visits in 60 days. In the same period my site had some 80,000 visits.

Biblelight (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1. The fact did used to be there. It was removed because it was pretty much considered unimportant. The only citation was also to the donation itself, which is discouraged. But all you have to do is read the donation and see it! Promoting it as you do on your website, and by having to ask this question, you're pretty much admitting that you've never even read it?! As for it being found on the internet, let me point out that technically it doesn't need to be found there, but any old google search will reveal tons of sources.

2. Once again, this fact was there and considered unimportant. With the additions you want to make, it, however, becomes very important. Paul VI applied it to all the popes? I haven't heard that in a while, so I'm a bit fuzzy, but if I recall correctly, he called the popes "Vicarius Christi", what he said was translated into English to "vicar of Christ", and someone for some unknown reason translated that back into Latin rather poorly, resulting in Vicarius Filii Dei.

3. This was also once on wiki and considered unimportant. All we had to do was report that reliable sources consider it bunk. It was removed as unnecessary detail. And YES, it is in the margin - in the original. In most copies of it, the copier didn't really know what to do with the phrase, and so stuck it in. You can't exactly type it into the margin. But in the original document, it was indeed in the side margin.

4. This, I don't think, was ever on wiki. But so what? It's not a big deal.

5. You say the facts don't exist. Use google. Pick any of the hundreds of links that aren't to your website. A large chunk of them say these things. Clearly, you have not even so much as looked for these facts, wanting to wallow in your ignorance so you don't have to swallow your pride and admit you were wrong.

6. Uh...I just documented it.

7. Again, my "phantom facts" are right there in front of your face. Just reading the donation, even if you don't understand a word of Latin, reveals half of them. Google searches come up with the rest - and on the very first page of searches! If you say you've looked for this stuff and not found it, I must call you a liar. If you say you have not looked for it, I must call you dishonest. Either way, you are exposed for what you really are.

8. Now some points of my own - the donation was also a government document, not a church document. So you can't, even if the title was not in the margin, was attributed to all popes, and even if the document wasn't a forgery, attribute the title to the pope. Second, even if popes used the title, that does not, in any way, make it official. There is a well documented list of papal titles, which actually adds new titles from time to time, and Vicarius Filii Dei has never been on it. It's just like how Farsight is not officially my name because it's not on my birth certificate, nor would I appreciate being called by that name in person. Thirdly, even if it were a title of the pope, so what? There are hundreds of names out there of tons of different people (Ellen Gould White among them) whose names add up to 666. Why make this declaration only about the pope? Fourth - why is any connection to 666 seen as evil? Why not just a random fluke? See 1 Kings 10:14. No one thinks of Solomon or the queen of Saba as evil because of their association with 666.Farsight001 (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are unable to produce verifiable documentation on any of your phantom facts, and because I don't post these phantom facts to Wikipedia, you say I am dishonest or a liar? Do I have that right?
Before the article on Vicarius Filii Dei was locked 4 days ago by the Sysop, I was in the process of posting documented verifiable information, to include official use of the title by Paul VI, which is on the Vatican web site, and has been published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See), the official publication of the Holy See. You, however removed this 3 times in one day. Please request that the Sysop unlock that article immediately and revert to 18:07, 6 July 2009 so that I can resume contributing to that article. Biblelight (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not unable. I just didn't because they're right there if you just google them. They're all over the place. You have to be intentionally avoiding the information not to see it, selectively and consciously visiting the links you like and avoiding the ones you don't, which is what makes you dishonest.
What you have repeatedly tried to add, as I have already explained, did not meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. It is not what you are saying that I oppose. It is how you say it - the complete one sided-ness of it, the misrepresentation of the sources, improper sources, use of foreign language sources (which is discouraged), the extremely large section of html coding that adds tons of bytes to the article without displaying anything, and the deletion of sourced material, and addition of completely unsourced material that I take objection to. I have over and over and over and over and over again explained wikipedia policies to you and several times suggested you read up on them so that these issues do not happen, and you simply continue on your quest, ignoring all advice.
I will not bother requesting that the Sysop unlock the article because for one, he would never listen to me. Second, the moment the article gets unlocked, you will simply re-add the material without trying to fix the many, many issues I brought up, which will just lead to someone reverting it again and you childishly whining about censorship again. What you call contributing, the rest of wiki calls disruption, and I'm not going to help you do it. Again, I will strongly suggest that you read up on wikipedia policies regarding proper sourcing, npov, and the like, read a few featured articles for examples of how to write neutrally, find proper citations, and then come back and try again.Farsight001 (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

9. I'm not unable. I just didn't because they're right there if you just google them. They're all over the place. You have to be intentionally avoiding the information not to see it, selectively and consciously visiting the links you like and avoiding the ones you don't, which is what makes you dishonest.

You are still unable to produce your phantom facts for reasons that are obvious.

10. What you have repeatedly tried to add, as I have already explained, did not meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. It is not what you are saying that I oppose. It is how you say it - the complete one sided-ness of it, ...

The truth does tend to be one sided, as it exposes error quite effectively.

11. ... the misrepresentation of the sources, ...

This phantom charge has the credibility of your phantom facts. You will not be able to show a single case where I in any way misrepresented any source.

12. ... improper sources, ...

I quote the article on Vicarius Filii Dei: "Other than the forged Donation of Constantine no primary source evidence exists to suggest the existence of such a title for the Pope." This is patently false. I have been trying to contribute that very evidence, but you will not permit it. See #10 above.

13. ... use of foreign language sources (which is discouraged), ...

The title is Latin. I am attempting to document official use of the title 3 times by Popes in the original setting, the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, which is Latin. Your continued objection about this is quite comical.

14. ... the extremely large section of html coding that adds tons of bytes to the article without displaying anything, ...

You don't know html much do you? That code is a table, that does not "adds tons of bytes" any more than any other html. I have put the identical code here. As you see, it does display exactly as it should. Another phantom accusation without substance.
V = 5    F  = no value   D = 500
I =  1   I = 1   E = no value
C = 100   L = 50   I =  1
A = no value   I = 1       --------
R = no value   I = 1       501
I = 1       --------
U/V = 5       53
S = no value
    --------

112 + 53 + 501 = 666

    112

15. ... and the deletion of sourced material, ...

If this is an infraction of the rules, you have done this to my contributions every time you have reverted them.

16. ... and addition of completely unsourced material that I take objection to. ...

Actually, you refuse to permit material that has superb multiple verifiable sources, and allow material to remain that is demonstratably false. See # 12.

17. I have over and over and over and over and over again explained wikipedia policies to you and several times suggested you read up on them so that these issues do not happen, and you simply continue on your quest, ignoring all advice.

Your advice is evaluated in the numbered points above.

Biblelight (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you've numbered things interestingly -
9. Again, I am not unable. I didn't because it's all right there with a simple google search. If you honestly can't figure it out for yourself, then here: [[1]]. But considering your capacity to make a website, I find it far more likely that you refused to look than that you couldn't find anything.
10. ...and there's another policy you might want to look up - wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If all the mainstream sources say the world is flat, we report that the world is flat. Though let me make it clear that in regards to vicarius filii dei, I think the article is biased not only towards verifiability, but also truth, and that the information you continue to add is mostly fraudulent.
11. Anyone reading your additions can see your intentional misrepresentation of the sources. I don't need to show it because the only one who can't see it is you, and you still wouldn't see it if Jesus himself smacked you across the face with it.
12. What you said was not, in any way, a response to the fact that you are using improper sources. Again - check wiki policies on this.
13. First of all, there is no "continued objection". This is my first mention of it. Foreign language sources ARE discouraged. Finding an English language source IS preferable. An additional problem with your foreign language source is that it is also technically a primary source. We typically don't get to use those except to quote because it forces people to make value judgments on their contents.
14. I actually do know html, which is why I objected. There is no reason for that much code. It can be simplified by quite a bit. for example, there is no need to enter a color code for every little thing as the default is already black. In addition, it is an unnecessarily complicated chart when there is already a simpler and still very clear explanation of it in the article.
15. Deletion of sourced material, when those additions are ridiculously pov, and a misrepresentation of the sources, and when the sources are already improper, is quite allowed.
16. This is also not a response to what I said. You added completely unsourced material in places. This is innappropriate. Thus, this is removed.
17. Not really. You argued against what I said, when what I said was an attempt to keep you in full compliance with wiki policies. You are, essentially, complaining about policy. If you don't like that, then wikipedia isn't the place for you. Also, in re-reading your additions, I noticed several formatting, grammar, and spelling errors, as well as WP:OR. If you are unwilling to fix the policy issues that I have mentioned to you, then you will be endlessly unable to make the additions you want to make. If you truly want to "expose" the truth, then the only way that's going to happen is if you play by the rules. It's as simple as that.Farsight001 (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Again, I am not unable. I didn't because it's all right there with a simple google search. If you honestly can't figure it out for yourself, then here: [[2]]. But considering your capacity to make a website, I find it far more likely that you refused to look than that you couldn't find anything.

Who do you think you are fooling?

10. ...and there's another policy you might want to look up - wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. If all the mainstream sources say the world is flat, we report that the world is flat. ...

Majority popular opinion is no guarantee of truth, and Wikipedia values popular opinion above truth. That is why Wikipedia has the miserable reputation it has.

... Though let me make it clear that in regards to vicarius filii dei, I think the article is biased not only towards verifiability, but also truth, ...

Well, you are supporting and advocating a "flat earth" Wikipedia, where truth is not respected. Your "flat earth" truth has no integrity.

... and that the information you continue to add is mostly fraudulent.

The documents I am trying to add are official Roman Catholic documents with multiple verifiable sources. It is indeed remarkable for you to condemn them them as fraudulent.

11. Anyone reading your additions can see your intentional misrepresentation of the sources. I don't need to show it because the only one who can't see it is you, and you still wouldn't see it if Jesus himself smacked you across the face with it.

My main sources are the Vatican web site, Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Acts of the Apostolic See) the official publication of the Holy See, and state/university library websites. I am not misrepresenting any of them in any way.

12. What you said was not, in any way, a response to the fact that you are using improper sources. Again - check wiki policies on this.

When you hide behind "flat earth", truth and properly documented sources are indeed improper and irrelevant.

13. First of all, there is no "continued objection". This is my first mention of it. Foreign language sources ARE discouraged. Finding an English language source IS preferable. An additional problem with your foreign language source is that it is also technically a primary source. We typically don't get to use those except to quote because it forces people to make value judgments on their contents.

You previously objected to documents that are not English on the talk page for Vicarius Filii Dei on 04:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC). We discussed it then.

14. I actually do know html, which is why I objected. There is no reason for that much code. It can be simplified by quite a bit. for example, there is no need to enter a color code for every little thing as the default is already black. In addition, it is an unnecessarily complicated chart when there is already a simpler and still very clear explanation of it in the article.

You claimed it did not display anything, when it does. You may consider it complicated, I do not.

15. Deletion of sourced material, when those additions are ridiculously pov, and a misrepresentation of the sources, and when the sources are already improper, is quite allowed.

See response to #10 & #11 above.

16. This is also not a response to what I said. You added completely unsourced material in places. This is innappropriate. Thus, this is removed.

Cite an example of my unsourced material.

17. Not really. You argued against what I said, when what I said was an attempt to keep you in full compliance with wiki policies. You are, essentially, complaining about policy. If you don't like that, then wikipedia isn't the place for you. Also, in re-reading your additions, I noticed several formatting, grammar, and spelling errors, as well as WP:OR. If you are unwilling to fix the policy issues that I have mentioned to you, then you will be endlessly unable to make the additions you want to make. If you truly want to "expose" the truth, then the only way that's going to happen is if you play by the rules. It's as simple as that.Farsight001 (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Your complaints evaluated in the above responses. Biblelight (talk) 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And something else you're not supposed to do - break up the posts of others. Please do not do that again. It makes following the conversation difficult.
No, I don't think I'm fooling anyone. I told you it's all right there with a simple google search, which you are clearly unwilling to do, so I did it for you. Is that still not enough? too bad. Sloth is a sin, and I will not contribute to yours. Try some effort.
wikipedia does NOT have popular opinion win out. If it did, the Evolution article would undoubtedly be written very against the idea. Like I said, verifiability. If you can find it in a reputable source, and provide it in an npov and encyclopedic manner, you can put it in. You simply have not accurately represented what little reliable sources you use, and on the rare occasion that you do, it is certainly not presented in npov or encyclopedic manner.
My "flat earth" truth has no integrity? Is that why everyone but you thinks the article is pretty ok as is? Is that why it's well cited and sourced and written in a fairly encyclopedic manner? Again, you are ultimately objecting to the rules.
I did not condemn every source as fraudulent, only some. The Catholic sources you were blatantly misrepresenting, which I already explained.
If you're going to bring up what happened back in May, then sure, I talked about it already. I figured we were talking of the recent issue - only what has arisen since you were absent for several weeks.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in talking about the html. It did not display anything USEFUL. What you tried to add was already in the article. Your opinion as to whether or not it took up too much space doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It was unnecessary with a large amount of unnecessary code. The concept is called "efficiency". Try it sometime.
I'm just going to cut it off here. You aren't listening. You don't listen. I have tried and tried and tried to help you, and you will not listen. You simply assume that my intent is to censor the article, and no matter how many times I cite who knows how many policy violations you've maken, you ignore my advise and again accuse me of censoring the article. Admins have talked to you and blocked the article because you refuse to discuss or to fix your edits. If you are not going to fix your additions to follow policy (which I first suggest you read what policy is, because you obviously don't understand and don't want to), then go the hell away. You are not welcome here. Everyone here is equal and everyone here has to follow the rules equally. As long as you keep demanding special treatment, you will get nowhere. Unless you decide to straighten shit out, I will simply revert any changes you make, with reference to this talkpage to show people that I tried to get through to you. This is way beyond "pearls before swine". I'm out of pearls. You ate them all. I have nothing left to give. So you get to figure it out on your own now. Peace.Farsight001 (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Vicarius Filii Dei, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Pope Francis enthroned between Cherubim in the apse of the Basilica of St. Paul's outside the walls on April 14, 2013.jpg)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Pope Francis enthroned between Cherubim in the apse of the Basilica of St. Paul's outside the walls on April 14, 2013.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)