User talk:Ramirami60

March 2024
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Black magic, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * First of all this is not true as I have referenced a renounced Jewush scholar and his works. I will also be referencing other journal papers on my additions. secondly most of the references on issues such as religion and spirituality can't possibly be empirical and hence what you are asking of me is impossible and is not asked for other religious/spirtual topics. I suggest you stop the censoring, read my info it's ironically exactly about the harms of censorship on this topic. Ramirami60 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You continue to add a YouTube video as a source after being told it is not a reliable source. You used an academia paper to claim "Kabballah is also central to freemasonic rites" when the paper doesn't appear to actually make this claim and then you added your own beliefs that this is "another evidence that researchers point to, to validate that Kabballah contains black magic." This is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The whole third paragraph was sourced to one paper than never mentions Kabballah or black magic. You made up a whole section and then just found papers with titles that kind of said what you wanted them to say. This is all original research and you need to stop edit warring your own personal views into the article. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * if Wikipedia allowed yt links as auto refer then based on what are you saying it's not allowed.
 * the paper saying kabballah is central to freemason rights explains the use of kabballah in scottish rite which is central to freemasonary, so not sure if your reading is the problem or your honesty most likely the latter given the elaborate reply which has baseless intricately designed accusations.
 * I have now added ref on kabballah and antisemitic conspiracy theories and hence my last ref is valid as it's talking about the negatives of censoring alleged antisemitic conspiracy theories in general.
 * Don't censor this topic or I will open a dispute. Ramirami60 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * YouTube is WP:USERGENERATED and therefore unreliable. Unless the paper explicitly claims "Kabballah is also central to freemasonic rites" you can't use it as a source for that assertion. Please read WP:NPA and cease making personal attacks. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * as i said Wikipedia allows it as an auto link.
 * also every prove even peer reviewed papers are user generated, that's really a blank accusation, what you want AI to only provide evidence loool. secondly the yt video i use for my ref is generated by a scholar on judiasm and kabballah as evident by his credentials on his Wikipedia. Ramirami60 (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You can say "Wikipedia allows it as an auto link" but there is no actual policy which reflects this claim. Your sources are not WP:RS and now you are even falsely claiming their content. Your most recent edit used this source for the claim "The view by freemasons themselves that Kabballah is the root of freemasonry" when that source itself explicitly says "any historical links are strictly conjectural and unsupported." It is the opposite of your claim. You are just pushing antisemitic conspiracy views into articles and then grabbing random articles and pretending they support your claims when they don't at all. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * you arw the one lying. the source from the official freemason lodge wbsite if Colombia and... states "Those who claim Kabbalistic roots for Freemasonry are of two, widely different, perspectives. The first group are generally religious fundamentalists...The second group is composed of freemasons and kabbalists who promote the theory of Freemasonry’s link to the Kabbalah."
 * It's my problem you can't read or too dishonest to edit the info appropriately instead of deleting it completely. Ramirami60 (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I will warn you again about no personal attacks. You will find if you continue reading past that sentence, the whole paragraph reads


 * "The second group is composed of freemasons and kabbalists who promote the theory of Freemasonry’s link to the Kabbalah. They are entitled to their opinions, but it must be stressed that they do not speak for Freemasonry. They are only expressing their opinions. They view the study of both as enhancing their relationship with God and have come to some personal conclusions about what they perceive as similarities. Whatever intellectual or spiritual similarities there may be between Freemasonry and the Kabbalah, any historical links are strictly conjectural and unsupported."


 * You are pulling two sentences out of context and pretending the source says what you want it to say instead of what it explicitly does say. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * i am not citing evidence that Kabballah is the root of freemasonry as given the black magic (secrecy and deception) used in this issue we can only make logical inferences like both being zionists, both use same symbols both are protected by nato and this would take pages of work, what I am citing is that freemasons themselves say that which the article itself verifies clearly. loool what is conjecture and unsupported when it comes science hypothesis formation amd hidden political agendas loool. anyway the article clearly states many freemasons say this, and that's all i need. i been writing peer reviewed papers for 10 years, this is just bullying and edit warring by you not me. Ramirami60 (talk) 17:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Making "logical inferences" is called original research and you cannot do that here. I explained on the article talk page that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a WP:SOAPBOX and we don't deal in conspiracy theories. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We. looool. as i said i didn't make those logical inferences so i chose my words carefully. it's not correct to say that Wikipedia doesn't deal with conspiracy theories as there are entire pages on it. it is also noteworthy to point out that theory presentation is an academic practice and central to the scientific method and that not all conspiracy theories are proven as misinformation, that's the same as saying all theories are misinformation. most importantly even antisemitic conspiracy theories that have been targeted by immoral academics paid to formalise their invalidity, have not been really invalidated as a theory by those academics but all they can do is claim that they validate it's still a theory not a fact. given the secrecy of such organisations and stigma it is totally illogical to cite "it's a conspiracy theory" to invalidate such theories and information related to it. most of the info on Wikipedia about religion special magic and wicca is theory because of various different views on such matters by adherents probably due to the dichotomy of adherents on esoterism whether it's still valid in the aquarius age or not i.e whether hiding such believes is still needed or not. Ramirami60 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Black magic. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * i am not engaged in an edit war. ppl are simply deleting my entire contribution instead of editting which shows they are in a war as it's straight up censorship Ramirami60 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Black magic. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2024 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ThaddeusSholto (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

i didn't engage in edit warring. you can see through the log that users who disagreed with me just simply deleted my entire contribution instead of respectfully critiquing the parts they disagree with, how am i supposed to reach consensus if they are doing that. you can also see that i had changed my contribution to address some of their concerns so how am i the one engaging in edit wars.

i do admit i had engaged in name calling but only because of their obvious bias and lack of compromising, and got emotional specially because my contribution at question addresses the dangers of censorship the very thing these users were doing.