Llooke11

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Blasphemy against the holy spirit, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Blasphemy against the holy spirit was changed by Llooke11 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-07-20T18:03:48+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Blasphemy against the holy spirit constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• I notice you have made a series of edits to Blasphemy against the holy spirit. If you're attempting to make chances but having difficulty, please edit this page, your talk page, and explain what you're trying to do. We can either assist or, if necessary, explain why the change is against the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Also, when sending messages to other users, use the User talk page rather than the User page, e.g. User talk:Glorthac. —C.Fred (talk) 18:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello C.Fred. Yes, I have been unable to create/edit the page blasphemy against the holy spirit. I am trying to create a page on the topic which contains the true explanation of the topic which I have source evidence to support. I am also trying to update other synonymous pages with the correct explanation, or, perhaps with a link to the correct explanation. Please advise me as to what I need to do to be able to do so. Thanks. Llooke11

• Does it relate to the concept of Eternal sin? That's what the blasphemy article currently redirects to. I noticed you made a large addition there yesterday, but it was unsourced, so I removed it. If you could list your sources here, that would help me assess the addition.

Please also note that "true" explanations are often a matter of point-of-view, especially when religious topics are in play. I would strongly suggest that any prospective addition can be traced back to independent reliable sources giving commentary on the idea, rather than a primary source (e.g., the theologian proposing the idea). —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, the blasphemy against the holy spirit is the one sin in the entire Bible which is unforgivable. Because no one has ever explained what the sin is and how it is committed the sin-blaspheming against the holy spirit-has been called by the nature of the penalty when assigned by God-unforgivable. So, "eternal sin" is a synonym for "unforgivable sin". Additionally, the sin is also referred to in terms of its consequences as the "unpardonable sin". However, because my article will actually describe the sinful act and explain the actions that constitute the sin, as well as explain why people commit it instead of attempting to explain the sin in terms of its consequences it is much more meaningful if the page is named after the name of the sin, "Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit".
• As of present, all articles (e.g. those on Wikipedia, and those external to Wikipedia) about the unforgivable sin represent each author deducing each of the different possible explanations as to what the sin is, what causes it, what kind of sinful solitary act can a human being that results in them being-from that point in time forward-eternally unforgivable to God. But, however, up to present-2008-all, or almost all of the multiple possible alternative explanations of the unforgivable sin have been incorrect. Thanks to the grace of God, and to God alone, He, for whatever reason, allowed others and myself to obtain conclusive proof of what the sin is, what results from it, and what the rewards and punishments of the unforgivable sinners whom commit it are.
• I evidence information which sets the record straight by demonstrating how all those explanation theorized to date are not possibly the correct explanation of the unforgivable sin. Likewise, I explain the reasons why the true explanation of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit that I disclose, and, which I demonstrate to have already been evidenced on at least two different ocasions by a solitary and very reputable 3rd party source's publications and which conclusively disproves the other alternate explanations for the unforgivable sin.
• If not, let me know. My explanation of what the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is is based upon information I viewed within the following books, "The Church Of Satan: A History Of The World's Most Notorious Religion" by Blanche Barton, 1990; "An Exorcist Tells His Story" by Fr. Gabriele Amorth, 1990; "An Exorcist More Stories" by Fr. Gabriele Amorth, 1992; and "The New American Bible", 1992. Additionally, my explanation includes objective facts and conclusions all of which are conclusively deduced and can be logically proven. C.Fred Is there anything else that I need to do before I can create an article entitled, "Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit" given that I've provided some of my very reputable, third-party references? Please advise me ASAP. Thanks. Llooke11.Llooke11 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

• I point out this text from your comment: "He, for whatever reason, allowed others and myself to obtain conclusive proof of what the sin is, what results from it, and what the rewards and punishments of the unforgivable sinners whom commit it are" (emphasis added). Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and the Wikipedia standards are that they need to be published in independent reliable sources. The fact taht the first source is on the Church of Satan, yet is being used in an article about Christian theology, makes me dubious of whether it is a mainstream theory being presented or a synthesis based on pieces from other places - especially since the New American Bible is listed as a source.

The other option you have is to create the article in user space, e.g., at User:Llooke11/Blasphemy against the holy spirit; after you have a full version up there, we can evaluate whether it is ready to be moved to main space, whether changes need to be made, or whether it contains too much synthesis to be usable. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hello C.Fred. I've opted to upload the article to my user space as you suggested. I would greatly appreciate it if you would critique it. Please let me know what changes you suggest making as soon as is possible. Thanks. Scott.Llooke11 (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• C.Fred. How can I find out who deleted the article I published on my user page following your suggestion?Llooke11 (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Blasphemy against the holy spirit, you will be blocked from editing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry about blanking the page. I was just trying to find out why the page Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit could not be created and I blanked it in the process. (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit, you will be blocked from editing. "God told me the truth" is not a reliable independent source, because we cannot verify what God told you. See WP:V. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to preach from. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Test page", as you described it on my talk page, sums it up: if that was an experiment to see if the article was ready for article space, it is not. It does not read in neutral point-of-view. It is weakly sourced, and it appears that large portions of it are synthesis (if not outright original research). As NawlinWiki noted above (and he deleted the version you placed into article space), Wikipedia is not a soapbox for preaching - and that's all it appears your article on Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is. —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Administrators Summarily Deleted My Article "Blaspheming Against The Holy Spirit" Without Warning Or Reasons And Without Having Reviewed My Sources Thusly Summarily Denying Me The Ability To Edit The Article Per Wikipedia's Own Policy

Writer's response to all who have continually summarily deleted the article blasphemy against the Holy Spirit without warning or reasons only unsupported insinuations and ad-homonym attacks.

1. C.Fred was the one that suggested that I upload the article to my user page first so you could help me edit it. That's not what you did though. You lied to me.

2. C.Fred and NawlinWiki how is it that you expect me to believe that the topic is not weighty enough for Wikipedia, and that unlike many of the imperfect, some ridiculous Wikipedia articles I've read that are horribly written, that I, unlike them have to post a perfect draft on the fist occasion. Answer this question, "Why does Wikipedia have a policy on editing?

3. How is it that you cite a lack of sources as a reason for deleting my entire article when I provided you with specific, independent, 3rd party, well credentialed sources. If you disagree I'll insist that you delete every single Wikipedia page without references that I've discovered to exist. Coincidentally, all I have to do is reference the poorly written, unreferenced Wikipedia page entitled, "Eternal Sin" to identify one of many pages on Wikipedia that have no references whatsoever.

4. By the way the conclusions of the "Eternal Sin" article are incorrect. None of the things stated as "thought to be" or "speculated to be" the unforgivable sin of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit are it. That's why this article, along with every other article on the topic that I have seen ever posted on your website has to suggest that the unforgivable sin is thought to be five different things when it's not and I can and will prove it.

5. C.Fred, you clearly didn't have enough time to read the books I cited as references overnight since you last communicated to me on my user page suggesting he help me with my article.

6. The topic of "Blasphemy Against The Holy Spirit" is a credible topic comparable to any other topic you have on this website whose explanation and consequences are material rather than that of a good bit of the content on this site. There is no way for you to dispute the legitimacy of the content on the site. Is the topic to whimsical for you? Is it you, the same administrators coincidently that choose to violate your own rules repetitively and without evidence, that you claim there is much of that........, what? You can't include it? That's odd. Why not?

7. Regarding your repetitive summary deletions of my article per Wikipedia's own policy guidelines: Wikipedia's deletion policy/Alternatives To Deletion Page 2 of 8 states that, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." Wikipedia Deletion Policy Page 3 of 8. You, administrators violated your own rules. "My article meets none of the "Reasons For Deletion"

8. This page was merely posted on my user page where it was to remain until edited into conformity with Wikipedia policy but Wikipedia's administrators can't follow their own rules and perform as they committed to performing and you want me to accept both of your ridiculous reasons for deletion of the article which haven't-not for the last 8 times-you have refused to respond to my requests for help editing the article which you simply responded to by deleting the article without ever contacting me.

9. Next, referencing "What Wikipedia Is Not" page 9 of 11: "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy" which advises, "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them". Do I need to interpret this to either or both of you? Do you not get what I said about the fact that unlike all other articles on the unforgivable sin, the unpardonable sin, the blasphemy against the holy spirit, and the eternal sin, each of which focuses of proposing what blasphemy against the holy spirit is because THEY DON'T KNOW. Do you not understand the conclusions that can be drawn by the facts of my article that can easily be separated from the 1st person interrogatory between God and I that took place that happened to appear in the article before it has been edited. What does editing mean? Do either of you know?

10. In fact it's not even the Wikipedia Rules that are holding me up it's the same handful of administrators who act with malice and bias who have yet to evidence a problem with the article that can't be fixed. The only important thing is that the explanation is solitary because it's not a theory and it is evidenced. Where is the evidence that it's not evidenced!

Response about the article

First, I note that User:Llooke11/Blasphemy against the holy spirit‎ still exists, which is exactly where this article should be being worked on at this time - as a separate page in your user space.

Second, regarding the lack of sources, please indicate where, in one of the sources listed, it explicitly states each of the following. (N.b., I have indicated your exact text in quotes; sources need not use your exact text, but a statement of the same facts.)

1. Most Christians believe "that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit was committed as a consequence of an unsaved, unattoned for person dying."
2. "The Pharisees were themselves guilty of having blasphemed against the Holy Spirit."
3. "The number of reports of cases of demonic possession has drastically decreased over time."
4. Wicca is a form of Satanism.
5. "Irish Travelers ... blaspheme the Holy Spirit as a clan tradition."
6. "Blaspheming Against The Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin first spoken of by Jesus."
7. "It is literally impossible to interpret the New Testament correctly without the knowledge of what the unforgivable sin is."
8. "The most iniquitous sin in the New Testament is blaspheming against the Holy Spirit because it's unforgivable nature implies the eternal damnation of the souls of those who commit the sin. "
9. "Almost all people who buy or read a book on the occult are almost always already demonically possessed."
10. "All violent and malevolent spiritual means for the Church Of Satan as well as for all other pagan faiths that use occult practices is always only visible in spelled literature and will not be found on any printed page."
11. "[T]he Holy Spirit as a real spiritual essence, or presence, is blasphemed in front of the blasphemer who does so when they experience the aforementioned Satanic beatific vision."
12. "All people who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit are occultists most of whom are part of a long lineage of false-idolators according to Christian belief and most have been inhabited or possessed by a demonic spirit since their childhood. "
13. "[F]ollowing Jesus' warning regarding the blaspheming against the Holy Spirit that eventually human blood sacrifices were phased out over a relatively short period of time."
14. Blasphemers "never truly desire the forgiveness of GOD through Jesus Christ in this age."

And the I in "I was baptized a Catholic and was a practicing Catholic for the first seventeen years of my life." was never identified. Again, if this refers to you, there are issues including original research.

I would point out that #4 is generally refutable by scholars familiar with Wicca, so that statement would not be allowed to stand - or at least only allowed to stand in the context of (certain) Christian scholars considering it a form of Satanism.

These are the type of issues that I have with the article. It would make a wonderful essay for a blog, and Conservapedia might even take it. However, it has issues with original research and netural point-of-view, and it generally falls short of encyclopedia standards. —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I must point out the fact that there has been no violation of Wikipedia rule(s) violated in the process of uploading this content to my user page. Please state the Wikipedia rule violated by uploading this content to my userpage. Otherwise, as I understand it, I have an indefinite amount of time to make use of my Wikipedia rights to edit my article's content on my userpage before I upload it as an article.

I can and will respond to your criticisms of my article in the process of editing it. And, regarding your last criticism I would point out that every Christian scholar, whom outnumber Wiccans 99 to 1, would not shriek from defending my statement that Wicca is an occult belief system whose practitioners use witchcraft-a malevolent means of practice-which is first spoken of in the Bible with the Pentateuch. I'm as sure about this as I am that God cursed Satan and Satan for whatever reason didn't curse God back and it has everything to do with being explainable by natural law and survival of the fittest.

MfD nomination of User:Llooke11

User:Llooke11, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Llooke11 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Llooke11 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Chillum 22:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Tan ǀ 39 22:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

Llooke11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There have been two pages of ranting discussion and no one has stated the Wikipedia rule that's been violated by the posting of the content which appears only on my user page at this time. Please be specific in your criticisms. Otherwise, absent your ability to cite a violation that merits the immediate deletion of content which is within the parameters of content to be allowed on user pages I will assume this entire discussion baseless.

Decline reason:

Your request for unblocking doesn't address the core concern that resulted in the block - the fact that you were being disruptive. Looking at your contributions, it looks like the main disruption was cross-posting a long 10-point rant on various pages - one that included mild personal attacks (accusations of malice and bias, for example). Even if you're right, a point on which I choose not to speculate, you still need to be civil and courteous in your interactions with others. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

below

You were editing disruptively. I suggest you wait it out, as your block was only for 48 hours, its almost up. Take some time to think about how you can contribute positively. I can't outright decline your request since I'm not an admin, but I doubt anyone will unblock you at this time. Regards. Synergy 07:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

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).

Llooke11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

1. The initial issue is that my posting of my article content to my userpage-and at the recommendation of an administrator-violated no Wikipedia policy or rule. 2. I was not disruptive. I was being subjected to multiple questions from multiple administrators for an issue they had no right to interogate me over in the first place. As if that were not unfair enough an administrator put a block on my account that wasn't merited and I was not able to defend myself against questions that were continuing to be directed at me all while those who did so did it knowing that an administrator blocked my account. Additionally, this is the third occassion on which I've tried to post the article and requested assistance from an administrator who agreed to help me before posting my content as an article. Each time my content was summarilly deleted with no constructive criticisms. The administrators on the previous occassions made non-constructive, mocking, yet unsubstantiated and unevidenced comments while I was not logged on and summarily deleted my page and blocked my account. It's noteworthy that some of the same administrators who did these things on the previous 3 occassions are some of the same ones who are unfairly treating me now. Lastly. In my opening defense of unfair administrator crititicisms whom I requested to cite which of Wikipedia's rules or policies that I was in violation of did not do so. They ignored me. I also noted that at least two of the administrators harranguing me were themselves in violation of Wikipedia rules by summarilly deleting/blanking and editing content without any discussion. Most of their criticisms were unfounded, a matter of their uniformed opinion, and were slights. It should not come as a suprise to you that none of them were evidenced because none of them were evidencable.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that consist mostly of attacks on others are not considered; see WP:GAB. —  Sandstein  22:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

---

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.

I have protected your talk page from further editing for the duration of the block, due to your abuse of the {{unblock}} template. Tan ǀ 39 22:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)