User talk:PeterJ99

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, 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. MrOllie (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"Reliable" is quite a subjective term. For example, when does a source quit being reliable? Washington Post and NYT have both been caught so many times red handed in lies, on purpose for political reasons, they hardly rate as reliable. Yet, I think you might weigh them in as much. So, clarification would be useful on this, not merely a couple of "scientific" examples, as I've seen done to chastise this user previously. Historian09041965 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. MrOllie (talk) 20:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I replied to MrOllie

MrOllie,

I have read many Wikipedia articles that have included the reference [citations needed]. My intent is to add the citations and my hope would be that others would as well. That would be in the spirit of Wikipedia. Please do not come in and edit out my work before it is completed. I'm new to this editing and if I need to do something else, or do it in a different way, please advise me on my talk.

PeterJ99 PeterJ99 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC) PeterJ99 (talk) 18:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a fact that needs a cite, and what you have done, which is add your personal thoughts to the article. No possible citation could support this, it is original research. You cannot post stuff like that on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie,

Would you please edit, or at least highlight, the parts that you see represent my personal thoughts? I see the additional comments above and beyond Scripture that I have added only increase readability. My comments do not add new conclusions. Where a prophecy is stated in the Bible, it is not original research to point out where the Bible states the event has happened. PeterJ99 (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

All of it. Wikipedia isn't a place to upload your novel interpretations of the Bible. MrOllie (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie,

Quoting a book that has been in print for thousand of years and has more printings than any other book is not "original research". The Bible is a reliable, published, source. I can use in-line citations, and I will. Just because you may not have studied it in its entirety doesn't make my pointing out the stated facts a novel interpretation. PeterJ99 (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not written based on primary sources, and certainly not based on your own interpretations of them. If you keep on as you have been, it is very likely that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

MrOllie,

I'm shaking the dust off my feet from the Great Tribulation page. PeterJ99 (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Page blocks

You have been blocked for 3 months from editing Great Tribulation and its talkpage because of severe disruption. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC).

Failure or refusal to "get the point"

Hi PeterJ99,

I'll quote from WP:IDHT, a part of the guideline against disruptive editing.

Sometimes, editors perpetuate disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia.

Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you.

Your current block may be expanded to all pages if you persist in using Wikipedia as a forum for original research, personal interpretations and grievances about other users' policy explanations.

It may help to find something unrelated, non-religious, to edit about. The Task Center and the community portal can provide helpful ideas. Editing about other topics may help you to gain an understanding of how Wikipedia works, and to understand others' concerns about your initial edits.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Hello again PeterJ99. I noticed that after I blocked you from Great Tribulation, you wrote to Historian09041965 (a user who hasn't edited for three weeks, btw) that "I plan to work my way through the list of people that have been treated as you and I have and share my work". If that means you plan to continue to paste this text on other pages, I'm afraid I will block you from the whole site. This is an encyclopedia, and your text is not encyclopedic. Also, it's simply too long, and bloats up talkpages in a way they're not designed for. ToBeFree has some suggestions above for what you can do instead. Bishonen | tålk 21:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC).

Bishonen,

I thought the talk pages are here for member to discuss topics so that Wikis would be concise? I was looking for someone to assist me in presenting my information according to Wikipedia standards. My understanding of Scripture is not original research. The Bible is source document. It says what it says. If I properly cited it my input should not have been rejected. What I am seeing is that Wikipedia is a democracy, of which I've been inclined to say in the past, "The consensus of fools is foolishness." You can quote me on that. PeterJ99 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bible is a WP:PRIMARY source, which may only be analyzed by experts (mainstream Bible scholars and notable theologians). This is recognized as website policy (WP:OR) since the early 2000s. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE.

By "Bible study" Wikipedia means something like https://yalebiblestudy.org/ and like https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/hebrew-bible/free-hebrew-bible-course-with-shaye-cohen/ and something very much unlike your own deductions based upon Sola Scriptura. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2022 (UTC)