User talk:Spyrazzle

Spyrazzle, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Spyrazzle! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Spyrazzle! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, re-submission after deletion, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Teahouse, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Spyrazzle! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Gatekeeping, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Our Lady of Fátima. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

ASUKITE 15:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

You have been blocked from editing Our Lady of Fátima although you can still try to develop consensus for your proposed changes at Talk: Our Lady of Fátima. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I allowed you to keep editing Talk:Our Lady of Fátima in the hope that you would work with the other editors interested in that article to develop consensus language. Instead, you have been arguing and insulting other editors. Therefore, you are blocked from that talk page as well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insulted user Fadi153 in some time. Rather, that user kept insulting me, calling me a "God hater" and "brainwashed." Right now there are only Catholic editors on that page. They prove that by calling Mary "Blessed Mother" among other things. They prove it when they delete key facts and key witness testimonies in order to slant the narrative, such as user ZFish did. This cannot happen in an encyclopedia. We are talking about two dead children who had very suspicious gory deaths, and the details of those deaths have never existed on Wikipedia until I added them, which is also extremely suspicious, when there are 70 million Catholics in America alone, when this is one of the most famous Catholic "miracles" of all time. No one before me has ever bothered to submit the facts from the child's own memoirs to Wikipedia? I highly doubt that. I have been checking Wikipedia for years, wondering when "neutral" informative Wikipedia would present the authentic unabridged story, and in all those years it never happened, with 70 million Catholics in America it never happened, and it is because Catholic editors gang up on anyone who tries to present the uglier facts. As you know, it was in the news recently that some 300,000 children were raped by Priests and Nuns in the French Catholic Church alone, just France, just from the 1950s until now, and all of those cases were concealed to the public until a couple weeks ago. There have been over a million concealed child rapes by Priests and Nuns. Concealed deliberately, concealed strategically, concealed by writing big money checks. Likewise, these Catholic "miracles" typically have gruesome or bizarre details that are strategically concealed from people's eyes. You don't think the multi-billion-dollar Catholic Church controls various Wikipedia accounts when they've successfully concealed over a million child rapes all over the world from the police, from the newspapers? Of course the Catholic Church has Wikipedia accounts and they pay people to monitor them daily, hourly probably. A user called me "an atheist" and "a Protestant" and it is not true. As a child I myself was educated by Priests and Nuns--I certainly did not get the facts from them though. I got the facts from a library. Libraries are superior to web encyclopedias. Anyway, I am not the first person to try to add a controversy section to the Fatima page. I won't be the last. But anyone who tries will have their material deleted, diluted, erased, minimized, slanted, spinned. I did not know that in order to join Wikipedia you had to assemble a posse of people to present basic facts from hardcover library books. The books themselves should be enough. Btw I had offered every editor photographs of every page I used in my research; no one accepted. I have also saved receipts of every conversation from the Fatima talk page, since one or more users tried to delete the entire talk page in addition to the entire controversy section multiple times. A religious page is not the same as an architecture page or a movie fandom page. Religious and political pages will always have serious behind-the-scenes debate. Catholics do not want a controversy section for obvious reasons. They fight hard. They fight sneakily. I tried my best to get factual information on Wikipedia to help people. But it was one person against many. Spyrazzle (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]