User talk:83.244.149.133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Your edit to Pope John Paul II.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Pope John Paul II, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 16:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandal, what are you talking about? My addition (see below), is what really, happened, I was there. The official line is just a cover story.

On March 31, 2005 the Pope John Paul II died after a bizarre incident, which began in the early hours the of the 31st. One witness stated "It was insane, I was woken at 5:00 am, by the sounds of ungodly music, which I now know to be the Status Quo hit, "Rockin' All Over The World". I followed the dreadful sounds, and found that they were emanating from the Pontiff's quarters, I tentatively opened his holinesses door, to a scene that will haunt me for the rest of my days. Several Cardinals were trying unsuccessfully, to calm an overtly hysterical Pontiff (over the din of the music), who was leaping vigorously about his mattress, performing what one could only describe as the heretical act of "Air Guitar". The cardinals were trying desperately to reach the stereo system by the Pontiff's bedside, but the Holy Father would thwart their actions by hurling chocolate Maltezers at the hapless clergymen, and sometimes, at the more determined, the more weighty Cadbury Cream Egg. It was when the music track changed from Status Quo, to Wings, 70s hit, "Jet", I had calmed from the initial shock, and sheltered from the barrage of flying chocolate, that I noticed the chocolate smeared liberally around the pontiff's face, hands and pajamas, and that his usual night time attire had been replaced by a Motley Crue t-shirt. The situation swiftly turned from bad to worse, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger tried to remind the Pontiff of the day's duties, in an effort to calm his frantic behavior, upon which, his holiness John Paul II, turned his back on Ratzinger, and bared his buttocks to the unsuspecting Cardinal, and then, when all those present, thought the Pontiff's madness could not descend any further, the Pope, placed his hands around his buttocks, and like a ventriloquist's dummy began to feign talking through his bared behind. In a deep rasping voice, he announced "I'm ready to receive my sacrament", and laughed, in that same evil rasping fashion as his put-on voice. It was like a scene from the Exorcist, the air was blue, and all of us were nearly sick....I retched a couple of times, but nothing came up, Ratzinger however, made the sign of the Cross, and fainted. It was when the Pontiff reached for the "Ferrero Rocher", that the sick, disgusting, situation came to an end, in an act of utter of depravity, the Holy Father, attempted to pour the entire box, into his open mouth, alas it was too much, and God's Representative on Earth, collapsed, choking and gasping for air. With his last breath, he uttered the words "Errrgghhheerergghghrhfhgheehghghehhhhhhhhh......", before streams of molten chocolate dribbled from the sides of the late John Paul II's mouth.....I have not celebrated Easter, or eaten a single bite of chocolate since.

A tragic end, to a blessed life. One can only guess at the erstwhile Pontiff's final words, possibly a salient, incisive message of peace, and unity, to all creeds, races and religions. John Paul II rest in peace, you've found your stairway to heaven.

I'm sorry, I still think it's vandalism. I'll ask someone else to confirm if you'd like a second opinion though. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 16:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I moved the comment to the bottom of my page, where it belongs. Sorry if that confused you. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 16:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Further to your remarks, there is no second opinion that's going to convince me of the official "clap trap", my mind isn't brain washed by the tabloids, and the trash broadcast on television. The edit should stand, and in your heart you know it.

Oh, I see you've already asked User:Arjun01; I was going to ask him too. Okay, I'll wait for him to respond here, or on his talk page. | · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, ask your brain washed wikipals, it doesn't change the fact that the edit should stand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.149.133 (talk • contribs)

Your other edits are fine, but this one is not. You can discuss it on the talk page, but it will almost surely be rejected. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 17:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I thought that although your edit was quite entertaining, Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia, it sounds like pure fiction, is not remotely sourced and therefore Andonic's reversion was quite correct. Hope that helps. Maybe you can try your humorous editing style at Uncyclopedia instead. Bubba hotep 17:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is unbelievable intellectual fascism of the very highest order, I was there, at the Pontiff's very bed side, albeit ducking down from the constant volleys of chocolate, as he died. Your phrase "it sounds like pure fiction", is not a good enough justification to delete this important piece of history. You can't stop Rock and Roll my friend.

Furthermore, if you persist in spamming talk pages with this, you may get blocked. Friendly advice. Bubba hotep 17:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just because you find the truth unpalatable, you threaten those who wish to make it heard, and denounce it as spam. You are making a huge mistake, this is history, and it needs to be seen. Now I know how Martin Luther, or Galileo, might have felt. Threats are neither friendly, or valid advice, just the words of the intolerant, and dogmatic.

Okay I am just doing a quick in and out and then I have to go for a while, my reading of it looks like weakish vandalism. The test3 warning may have not been necessary but in general that info doesn't need to be in the article. It just comes across as...odd, also it seems like original research and another thing worth pointing out you didn't even cite. So please keep that out of the article as it doesn't really help the reader and just looks somewhat like a blog. Another thing, please don't spam talk pages, hopefully this clarified some things. If you have any questions please contact me or AndonicO. ~ Arjun 17:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

This is incredible! so after "doing a quick in and out", you've rejected my first hand, historical account as "weakish vandalism". My words are the truth, this is something that needs serious discussion, not whitewashing, and hiding under the carpet. I think a few of you work for the Vatican, or the Roman Catholic Church in some function? You're all trying to bury this, and hope it will go away, with threats, and intellectual intimidation. As for you comment "and another thing worth pointing out you didn't even cite.", this is completely untrue, in my earnest, and most serious account, of the events of that day, I've quoted the words of the erstwhile Pontiff himself, "I am ready to receive my sacrament". I am not letting this go lightly, I am absolutely sickened by the unjustifiable behaviour, of not one, but four individual wiki bullies.

Actually, I don't see any bullies, unless you count me, Bubba, and Arjun. Also, in any case, you would be the one working for the Vatican (allowed access when he was dying), so your accusations don't make sense. Finally, you should stop point of view pushing, or you may get blocked by an administrator. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you wish, you may, as I said above, discuss the inclusion of your account on the article's talk page. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean I do not make sense? I may have worked for the Vatican back then, but it is not necessarily the case now, perhaps because I was sickened by the cover up, and voted with my feet, so to speak. The truth is, you really haven't thought this through, further more, I'm not allowed to discuss this on the talk page, without it being deleted, or being threatened and bullied with threats of being blocked. Since when did "point of view pushing", or as other sane individuals calls it "debating", become so frowned upon? I think some consistency on the part of the Wiki admins is needed here, or is that "Point of View" pushing too?

From WP:POV: At Wikipedia, points of view (POV) are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POV of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue. The policy does not mean that all the POV of all the Wikipedia editors have to be represented. Hope that helps. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 11:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid more Wiki dogma does not help. In other words, what you have just quoted, says that if a select few so called "specialists" thought the world was flat, I would be forced to agree, and would not be allowed to say otherwise, or even sensibly debate it. Justifying poor behaviour, by hiding behind specious rules, that I do not think, you've ever dared to question, is just plain wrong. Being a member of a select approved group, or club, would not make my thoughts and ideas, any more or less valid, nor would it justify me threatening and bullying others who do not share them.

Well, what you say is your personal view, which, if you want it added, you would have to source. Otherwise, it will keep on getting deleted for being unverifiable. Add it back if you want; I won't delete it, since I don't want to get in an edit war, but someone else probably will. · AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 12:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] March 2007

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of unusual deaths. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.Terence Ong 10:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)