Phillip.13

May 2017

Please stop adding search engines results as sources. If you persist doing this, it will be seen as disruptive editing. See Wikipedia:Verifiability to learn about what constitutes an appropriate source on Wikipedia. Thanks. Karlpoppery (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

How does verifiability come into this? It is an article about a subject with the resources listed. Also I don't think it is appropriate for someone with poppery in his name to be editing articles about the Catholic Church. Phillip.13 (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The link I sent you explains what a source on Wikipedia is, notably the fact that it has to be published. You can ask for help if you don't understand this, just don't do edit warring because it is disruptive.Karlpoppery (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The source is members of the Catholic Church writing about Catholicism on a Catholic website. What are your qualifications Mr. Poppery? Enough of you Mason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip.13 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Phillip.13, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Phillip.13! 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 22:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Our Lady of Fátima and Miracle of the Sun.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. LuckyLouie (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Where is the disruptive edit? I added content about a subject that this article is inexplicively silent about, yet is at the centre of the incident - Freemasonry. The link I provided leads directly to the article and others related that you editors completely ignore. If you have to make false accusations against Wikipedia Editors you shouldn't be one. Phillip.13 (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Miracle of the sun. Stop trying to add this link to a search engined result as a source. I've warned you, I explained why you can't do that. You will be banned if you do it again Karlpoppery (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You're obviously extremely biased about the Catholic Church. You obviously should not be editing articles about the Catholic Church with Poppery in your name. The topic of Freemasonry and Fatima should be covered in this article. Your excuse for deleting the excellent link provided that takes you directly to the article and others is just that an excuse for a biased anti-Christian hate filled bigot who shouldnt be an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phillip.13 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. See also WP:ELNO regarding search engine links, and why your link was not generally appropriate. Murph9000 (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for abuse of editing privileges, as you did at Our Lady of Fátima. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  caknuck _° needs to be running more often 07:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lightbringer (usurped - blocked). Thank you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freemasonrywatch.org, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. For the avoidance of doubt, and allowing for the possibility that the suspicion of sock puppetry does not go anywhere, your previous block does not negate the earlier warning I gave you about personal attacks. Dirk Beetstra is showing commendable calm and patience towards you, but continued combative and needlessly negative personal remarks and attacks are very likely to result in a block. There is just no need for it, as the majority of us are happy to have a calm and civil discussion about things like your proposed links; but your conduct is certainly not helping your case. Murph9000 (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)