Dolliee

Welcome!

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

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Welcome to Wikipedia. Please read up on supplying valid reliable sources for material that you are trying to add to articles. Marauder40 (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm Marauder40. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Infant Jesus of Prague, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Marauder40 (talk) 15:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Infant Jesus of Prague. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Marauder40 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Infant Jesus of Prague, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dolliee reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: ). Thank you. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi i am Dolliee and this is the first place I found to answer ANYBODY

My 2 caveat wiki paragraphs did not edit or change one word by anyone but added true perspective regarding the Holy Infant of Prague

THEY WERE BOTH REPEATEDLY DELETED Here are the 2 caveat paragraphs:

Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known origin of the hand-less Icon, a pile of rubble after the Thirty Years War, was later verified and supported in the nineteenth century by the events at Lourdes, France, around a pile of rubble. There have also been repeated fabricated attempts to base this powerful Holy Self-made miraculous Sign-Icon of Prague in Spain, because the timing of its discovery and Hosea fulfillment contradicts the anti-Semitic text then being prepared by Mary of Agreda in Spain solely to sell an apocryphal, scandalous, sinful and impossible name, "Joakim", for the father of Mary already 1000 years honorably secured as Levite "Amram" by the Holy Qoran.

Caveat Wiki (again) - Firstly, it should be noted in regard to the so-called Ratzinger "coronation" that for this event the hair on the Prague Holy Icon was painted unprecedented non-Jewish, non-Jacob (Genesis 25:21 et seq.), red. Also, the September 2009 event itself either never officially took place or could not last becase the Sanctuary of The Infant of Prague had been violated in April, 2009. Apparently Ratzinger had not cared to notice this. But when the Czech Republic rightly excluded/deported from Czech territory David Duke as undesirable or even dangerous in late April, 2009, it neither then nor thereafter made any provision for the human rights of Duke (who had actually kept an image of the Infant of Prague on his website the whole time he was getting his PhD), to obtain even a limited and guarded day pass access to the Holy Infant of Prague Shrine Sanctuary, which is not "Czech Territory". No one has sued the Czech government or the Vatican over this yet.

After repeat deletions I added:

TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do not NEED to delete "your" lying junk to be understood. It is YOU who delete and call mine "unconstructive". OF WHAT? Murder rackets or phoney Catholicism?

See how they need to get away with anti-Semitic lies by blocking objectivity

you decide

cc:my files Dolliee (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dolliee, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Dolliee! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi i am Dolliee and this was my first day and the first place I found to answer ANYBODY complainig

My 2 caveat wiki paragraphs did not edit or change one word by anyone but added true perspective regarding the Holy Infant of Prague

THEY WERE BOTH REPEATEDLY DELETED

Here are the 2 caveat paragraphs to which I now add a Papal third:

History Caveat Wiki - It should be noted that until the late 1980's this Holy Sign Icon was practically universally known without using the name of Jesus, as The Infant of Prague, in exact fulfillment of Hosea 2:16-17. Also, the only truly known origin of the hand-less Icon, a pile of rubble after the Thirty Years War, was later verified and supported in the nineteenth century by the events at Lourdes, France, around a pile of rubble. There have also been repeated fabricated attempts to base this powerful Holy Self-made miraculous Sign-Icon of Prague in Spain, because the timing of its discovery and Hosea fulfillment contradicts the anti-Semitic text then being prepared by Mary of Agreda in Spain solely to try to sell an apocryphal, scandalous, sinfully violative of the first two Commandments and therefore impossible name, "Joakim", for the father of Mary already 1000 years honorably secured as Levite "Amram" by the Holy Qoran.

Papal Caveat Wiki (again) - Firstly, it should be noted in regard to the so-called Ratzinger "coronation" that for this event the hair on the Prague Holy Icon was painted unprecedented non-Jewish, non-Jacob (Genesis 25:21 et seq.), red. Also, the September 2009 event itself either never officially took place or could not last becase the Sanctuary of The Infant of Prague had been violated in April, 2009. Apparently Ratzinger had not cared to notice this. But when the Czech Republic rightly excluded/deported from Czech territory David Duke as undesirable or even dangerous in late April, 2009, it neither then nor thereafter made any provision for the human rights of Duke (who had actually kept an image of the Infant of Prague on his website the whole time he was getting his PhD), to obtain even a limited and guarded day pass access to the Holy Infant of Prague Shrine Sanctuary, which is not "Czech Territory". No one has sued the Czech government or the Vatican over this yet.

(Papal caveat contiued): But of course Ratzinger did not notice the April Prague Sabctuary violation as he wormed his way, with his Knight Waldheim, into the Holy Mosque on Temple Mount two weeks later on Msy 13, 2009. He did not see the Bob Dylan song, "Desolation Row", copyright chain from the nailed curtains to the broken doorknob, either, nor did he notice that the entire April event coincided exactly with the impossible finding of "probable cause" against Ingmar Guandique for the May 2001 Chandra Levy murder done by the Matt Hale/Knight Waldheim sponsoring FBI. How could he notice these instant replay basics when he never believed how anti-Semitic Mary of Agreda was told off in 1650 from a pile of rubble? Nobody messes with the Hosea 2: 16-17 abstract "Atlas Shrugged" Holy Infant.

After repeat deletions I added:

TO Maurauder40 et al: I am not a vandal. I am a lawyer. If you will stop deleting my LEGAL and SAFE Scripturally proven needed caveats, I will stop deleting your COMPLETELY MISLEADING Daniel 7 murder racket propaganda. You will please also note that I do not NEED to delete "your" lying junk to be understood. It is YOU who delete and call mine "unconstructive". OF WHAT? Murder rackets or phoney Catholicism?

See how they need to get away with anti-Semitic lies by blocking objectivity

you decide

cc:my files Dolliee (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC) Dolliee (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing, as you did at Infant Jesus of Prague. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Dolliee reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: Indef). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)