User talk:Edward Palamar

Abuse of power by lying, hateful (and damned) wikipedia editors results in everlasting captivity. Such is the abuse shown here through felon "Steve Smith"[edit]

August 2009[edit]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Prophecy of the Popes. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. « ₣M₣ » 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Prophecy of the Popes. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Chevy Impala 2009 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Prophecy of the Popes. Tiderolls 01:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. If you feel this block is unjustified, you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Pak aran 01:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Nathan - I posted the reason of unlawful deletion at your discussion page as well. If you do not have the text exactly as it was written, I can re-enter it for you. I did not know on the evening I saw the entries deleted that it was being done by you. I attempted to replace them there several times as I knew of their veracity. One of the initial guidelines was to be bold, so I did effort some to see that they were put where they were most deserved to be. I only just minutes ago noticed reasons for the behavior two nights previous. If you, Pakaran, Chevy Impala and/or Tiderolls feel a need to expound upon your actions, I would be greatful if you would communicate with me about them so that we can make Wikepedia a better place. Edward Palamar (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Assuming for the sake of discussion that your claim is accurate, you'll need to understand that nobody gets to write about themselves on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Assuming would not be verifiable, which is why the why and how of your reason supports violation of copyright. Edward Palamar (talk) 16:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources[edit]

I noticed your additions to the article, and I figure no one has explained reliable sourcing to you. All claims in Wikipedia must be able to be sourced to a Reliable, Verifiable source. If you can't do that, then we cannot accept it. This is to prevent large amounts of original research from creeping into the Encyclopedia. If you have a source, please cite it along with the edit, so that people checking can quickly verify your addition. Sorry you had a bit of a rough start, hopefully things will go smoother as long as you follow policy. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is in violation of copyright? Edward Palamar (talk) 16:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would that violate copyright? All we are asking you to do is tell us where the publication is, not copy it onto the site. I left instructions above with the link, but you might want to review it again: WP:CITE. If you still have any questions, I would prefer to continue this in one place so as not to fragment the discussion any further. I have added your talk page to my watchlist, just respond here and I will see it within a day or two. Sodam Yat (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is a service provided to insure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of religion, creed, sex, race, or nationality. So far, Sodam, you have discriminated against the English and Roman, through your abuse of Peter the Roman (English) and Petrus Romanus (Latin), and consequently the race of humanity as a whole. Edward Palamar (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read our article here on Copyright, it's nowhere close to what you think it is. Your argument would not work even if that were true, as we are not doing this based on your religion, creed, sex, race, or nationality, but rather are asking you to follow the same basic rules that everyone must follow. Sodam Yat (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone except, from what you have done and supported as to the "Prophecy of the Popes", the spirit of prophecy. In your attempts here to divulge to the reading public the intricasies of the St. Malachy prophecy I commend you until the point you betray the spirit of prophecy. I know you have betrayed me, but that is not a valid reason for me to betray the spirit of prophecy or knowledge (or anyone else), nor is it a valid reason of yours. I owed it to the spirit of prophecy to have accurately put at least the correct data in the 2 'Unknown' table cells concerning the final pontificate of the list. That having been done now you owe the spirit of prophecy (and the rest of us) the same courtesy and respect.

I advise you at this point to restore the data as entered and you are forgiven - if not, read on.

It is truly the sign of ingratitude for one to bite the hand from which he is fed. The good Spirit reveals to us the things we need to know in good season. You have shown support of excluding Him as well. And the hypocrites of Jesus' day also demanded signs, and they also sought to edit him out as well. You have robbed knowledge from the use by the lawful public domain and the reliable, verifiable source in your actions. This is apparently what is meant by "edited unmercilously" in your effort to include 'bozohood' as a substitute for 'everyone'. Not only have you robbed everyone else, you try to pass it off as a valid reason by insulting me in my surname. Such shameful conduct, all of you. Peace. Edward Palamar (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's policies[edit]

Wikipedia has a number of policies that I've seen you have already had problems with. One is No original research that states that statements "should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources". Note the secondary and tertiary sources. The Bible is a primary source. A second policy is the neutral point of view, and using a Christian source as the first definition of a term that is applicable to many different viewpoints goes against that policy. You need to use neutral, academic sources to include definitions on the page, especially for the lead sentence. Please refrain from going against those policies. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely[edit]

After reviewing your contributions, I have determined that they are uniformly problematic, despite several other editors patiently explaining our core content policies. Accordingly, I have blocked you indefinitely. I see above that you have experience with {{unblock}}, so I won't repeat an explanation of its use here. Steve Smith (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]