Demonic spirit Favonion's vandalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1956&diff=next&oldid=699417691

correspondence with wiki :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Peaceray/archive/2015#Re_:_link_color

This topic appeared as a related topic at my website after I cited a demonic spirit in vitro (that is, in an active visible state at another site on the internet, viz. wikipedia in its June, 1956 A.D. timeline).

The basis of the citation is the denial of the resurrection from the dead of Judas Iscariot, who was a diametrically opposed conjoined twin to myself for a certain period of time while I was undergoing resurrection.

The entire manifestation of Matthew 24:36 discards (makes null) the ability of myself as the resurrected to perform what is defined in wikipedia as "original research".

One of the pillars of wikipedia is NOR, or "no original research".

In other words, it is the effort of wikipedia to always have verifiable information.

But there is a point in time that I did not know that I was being resurrected, that makes the verifiable source to be God Himself.

The bottom line in this is that if Jesus, Himself, had foretold that this was going to happen in the exact manner that it did occur, what force can it be that denies such occurrence?

If you answer that force to be the devil, Satan, a demonic spirit or the like, you are correct, because Satan is God's enemy.

If you would like to view the actual demons in waiting for yourself, you can visit my website and go to the wikipedia section in the "Satanic Websites on the Internet" directory and study the actual occurrence.

Satan is real, his angels are real, and their everlasting punishment has begun.

Re : link color[edit]
I added an internal link to an article a few minutes ago at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Clement_III and noticed that the text color appears more of a magenta hue than the light blue in most other internal links. Can you explain here why this is so?--Exodus2320 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Exodus2320, your mileage may vary; I looked at the Antipope Clement III artlicle & the Matilda of Tuscany wikilink that you added appears as the regular blue for me. Peaceray (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The differences in hue is due to whether one has visited the link or not.

A vandalism has occurred here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1956&diff=next&oldid=699417691 by Favonion

Documented here :

(link to this topic)

Favonion's current status is shown to be blocked here :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Favonion&action=edit&redlink=1

but is working its vandalism through :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Favonian - Exodus2320 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Exodus2320, I disagree with your conclusions.

This diff for 1956 reveals no vandalism. The statement that Judas Iscariot was resurrected on June 25, 1956 requires verifcation from a reliable source. As per WP:VERIFY, "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." I could find no verification for this in the Judas Iscariot article (yes, I looked).

Favonian made the edit you cite, not Favonion.

Favonion's account is indeed blocked. Favonian made the block. If the two were the same person, I highly doubt that one account would block the other.

Favonian is an English Wikipedia administrator with over 174,000 edits. I inherently trust Favonianon on that basis alone.Peaceray (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Peaceray, given your reason, it is understandable that you disagree as that would mean you have an additional 174,000 cases of vandalism, but I am only concerned with this one as I know for fact that Judas Iscariot has been resurrected, and it is not original research on my part, even as I retain a neutral point of view. Using Judas' name with an included internal link is not the direct verifiablity of this, nor was it intended to be, but to show the specific "Judas Iscariot" that has been resurrected, because many are the abuses of Judas' name in personal arguments, i.e., the phrase "Judas priest" intending to be derogatory.

Favonian's reason is that this inclusion of fact in the annals of wikipedia is a bit of humour on my part, which it is not, the erroneous assumption on both his part and yours, with the original revert cited, constituting the act of vandalism, as well as another abuse to the resurrected's name. - Exodus2320 (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)