DavidRussellLayton
Welcome!
edit
Hello, DavidRussellLayton, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am your mentor and you can ask me any questions on my talk page or check out our help pages if you need help. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Simplified Manual of Style
- Your first article
- Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
- Play the The Wikipedia Adventure
- Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
- Remember to cite reliable sources
- and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Again, welcome! 141Pr -\contribs/- 07:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
edit
Hello, I'm Annh07. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 666 (number) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Annh07 (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- My contribution was constructive and verifiably accurate. Whether or not a contribution is constructive is subjective and does not qualify for removal. Please stop deleting my contributions. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- What was not constructive was that you are violating our policy against original research. That's not subjective - it's objective. If you don't understand the policy, ask questions at the teahouse and make sure you understand the policies before you continue. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're just trying to silence me because I'm posting something that's true and irrefutable. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- What was not constructive was that you are violating our policy against original research. That's not subjective - it's objective. If you don't understand the policy, ask questions at the teahouse and make sure you understand the policies before you continue. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Number of the beast, you may be blocked from editing. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, please stop edit warring to force your edits. That will not end well for you. You have pushed your edits on Number of the beast three times and been reverted. Please review WP:3RR and understand that edit warring is not allowed. We want you to participate in building an encyclopedia, but we also have policies and guidelines that need to be adhered to. If you don't understand them, ask questions. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- This just sounds threatening and you're attempting to silence me from point out that the Unicode values of the words HOLY BIBLE (using capital letters) total to 666. Where H = 72, O = 79, L = 76, Y = 89, B = 66, I = 73, B = 66, L = 76 and E = 69, HOLY BIBLE = 666. So how can I make a contribution to Wikipedia to point this out when the analysis not published anywhere else in the world? There are several sections in the articles that you mentioned that contained objective information. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is simply, you cannot add information to Wikipedia that is not published elsewhere, even if it is true and irrefutable. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize information that has been previously published. See WP:V and WP:OR. CodeTalker (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- If you read WP:OR there are very specific examples classified as "Routine calculations" that do not constitute "original research" under the topic "What is not original research". The calculations in my contribution were routine mathematical calculations which may require mathematical literacy as stated below. My contribution was simply referencing Revelation 13:18 and Unicode with basic arithmetic. Similar contributions remain in both articles. As I've said before, my contribution did not constitute original research and should be permitted. I was blocked without valid cause.
- What is not original research
- Routine calculations
- Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.
- Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.'' DavidRussellLayton (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is simply, you cannot add information to Wikipedia that is not published elsewhere, even if it is true and irrefutable. The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize information that has been previously published. See WP:V and WP:OR. CodeTalker (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- This just sounds threatening and you're attempting to silence me from point out that the Unicode values of the words HOLY BIBLE (using capital letters) total to 666. Where H = 72, O = 79, L = 76, Y = 89, B = 66, I = 73, B = 66, L = 76 and E = 69, HOLY BIBLE = 666. So how can I make a contribution to Wikipedia to point this out when the analysis not published anywhere else in the world? There are several sections in the articles that you mentioned that contained objective information. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:30, 20 June 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 666 (number). CodeTalker (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @DavidRussellLayton - at this point, you're edit warring on 2 articles. Stop and read the policies noted above and make sure you understand them before doing anything else. Ask questions if you don't understand. We're trying to help you get on the right track here and not get blocked. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're just trying to silence me because I'm posting something that's true and irrefutable. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, they have given you valid warning about adding unsourced information to Wikipedia. You must provide a third-party reliable source for every "fact" you add to Wikipedia and you may not add your own observations which have not appeared in any reliable source. You also failed to take a level 4 warning seriously, and I have proposed that you now be immediately blocked. Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- You're just trying to silence me because I'm posting something that's true and irrefutable. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. PhilKnight (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)- You blocked me for verifiably accurate facts on Wikipedia because you didn't like the implications. At least there's a record of it. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- The section below, in Identification by gematria, is qualitatively identical to my contribution, and you blocked me for mine. The contributor translated Nron Qsr from Greek to Hebrew and posted their own numerical analysis citing a numeric scroll that supposedly supports the numbering system. The scroll citation doesn't mention Nron Osr. If I site Revelation 13:18 site the Unicode numbering system, which is published on Wikipedia, I should be able to do the same thing, which I previously did. There several more examples of this. The book of Revelation and the Unicode numbering system are all that need to be cited.
- Identification by gematria
- Nron Qsr
- The Greek version of the name and title transliterates into Hebrew as נרון קסר, and yields a numerical value of 666, as shown:
- Resh (ר)Samekh (ס)Qoph (ק)Nun (נ)Vav (ו)Resh (ר)Nun (נ)Sum
- 200 60 100 50 6 200 50 666 DavidRussellLayton (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, you were blocked because you didn't provide any reliable source for the fact being notable to anyone but yourself. The material you just reproduced above is cited to a book by D. R. Hiller. That's why it gets to stay in the article. Your addition wasn't cited to anything. You were told repeatedly that you had to source it to a reliable, secondary source. Things made up or "discovered" by your own self aren't verifiable or really of any interest to our readers. See WP:V: everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in writing elsewhere. If you can't provide a link or citation to where someone else wrote about it, you can't add your "fact". And if you don't understand or accept the reality of academic sourcing, you don't belong here at all. Please note that you may not evade your block by creating another account. It will simply also be blocked as the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Skyerise (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- My source was Revelation 13:18 and the Unicode article in Wikipedia. Are those not reliable sources? I sourced my entry, and it was deleted. You're trying to discredit me because you don't like the implications of my entry. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those are not secondary sources confirming the fact that you added. They are two primary sources, neither of which states the fact that you added to the article, which you synthesized, which is not allowed. Per our policies: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. The source must say what you add: you may not combine sources or do original research. Someone else must have explicitly made the exact observation that you want to add to the article. And no admin is going to unblock you until you acknowledge that you understand that. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that there are other instances in articles on Wikipedia that are not supported by secondary sources that don't get removed. So, the standard you're talking about is not being enforced uniformly with every contribution to Wikipedia.
- In the "In Other Fields" section these are two examples. They are not confirmed by secondary sources and on of them is inaccurate.
- Is the magic sum, or sum of the magic constants of a six by six magic square, any row or column of which adds up to 111. This is unsourced.
- Molar mass of the high-temperature superconductor YBa2Cu3O7. This is inaccurate. The molar mass of YBa2Cu3O7 is 666.19. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- Those are not secondary sources confirming the fact that you added. They are two primary sources, neither of which states the fact that you added to the article, which you synthesized, which is not allowed. Per our policies: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. The source must say what you add: you may not combine sources or do original research. Someone else must have explicitly made the exact observation that you want to add to the article. And no admin is going to unblock you until you acknowledge that you understand that. Skyerise (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- My source was Revelation 13:18 and the Unicode article in Wikipedia. Are those not reliable sources? I sourced my entry, and it was deleted. You're trying to discredit me because you don't like the implications of my entry. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- No, you were blocked because you didn't provide any reliable source for the fact being notable to anyone but yourself. The material you just reproduced above is cited to a book by D. R. Hiller. That's why it gets to stay in the article. Your addition wasn't cited to anything. You were told repeatedly that you had to source it to a reliable, secondary source. Things made up or "discovered" by your own self aren't verifiable or really of any interest to our readers. See WP:V: everything in Wikipedia has to be verifiable in writing elsewhere. If you can't provide a link or citation to where someone else wrote about it, you can't add your "fact". And if you don't understand or accept the reality of academic sourcing, you don't belong here at all. Please note that you may not evade your block by creating another account. It will simply also be blocked as the sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Skyerise (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
DavidRussellLayton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked for disruptive editing. I made two minor edits that were verifiably sources by Revelation 13:18 and the Unicode page on Wikipedia. I won't make further edits without getting prior approval from an administrator. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand basically every part of Wikipedia. For example, you don't understand how to cite an edit appropriately and you don't understand that administrators are not in the business of giving you prior approval for your edits. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note to admim: User does not appear to understand why they were blocked. The seem to be a single-purpose account whose only interest is to add uninteresting numerological trivia which no one else has written about. Skyerise (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Note to admim: Skyerise says that my single-purpose is to add uninteresting numerological trivia which no one else has written about. If the standard for making contributions to Wikipedia hinges on what Skyerise finds interesting, they may be correct. But Skyrise doesn't speak for every user of Wikipedia and/or every other person in the world. Further, numerology and gematria are referenced several times in the 666 article and the mark of the beast article and is the basis of the interest in the number 666.
DavidRussellLayton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blocked by administrators without valid cause. The administrators and contributors attacking me seem to only be interested in insulting me and silencing my contributions. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DavidRussellLayton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was told that I was blocked because my contribution constituted original research. However, there are very specific examples in WP:OR classified as "Routine calculations" that do not constitute "original research" under the topic "What is not original research". The calculations in my contribution were routine mathematical calculations which may require mathematical literacy as stated below. My contribution was simply referencing Revelation 13:18 and Unicode with basic arithmetic. Similar contributions remain in both articles. As I've said before, my contribution did not constitute original research and should be permitted. I was blocked without valid cause.
What is not original research
Routine calculations
Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible. See also Category:Conversion templates.
Mathematical literacy may be necessary to follow a "routine" calculation, particularly for articles on mathematics or in the hard sciences. In some cases, editors may show their work in a footnote.'' DavidRussellLayton (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not a routine calculation. A routine calculation would be converting miles to kilometers or Celsius to Fahrenheit. What you're proposing is a factoid that you've deemed interesting without showing that anyone else has done so. Whether or not it's true is not really relevant. Several policies apply to this, including, WP:BURDEN (unsourced content, when removed, must be properly sourced before it's restored), WP:ONUS (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion), WP:UNDUE (pointing out some random observation made up one day by a Wikipedia editor), WP:EW (repeatedly adding the some content when it has been objected to by other editors), etc. You're going to have to take the time to read through our rules and convince us that you understand them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Converting 1000 meters to a kilometer is a routine calculation. Randomly finding a coincidence that Unicode numbers for the individual letters of HOLY BIBLE add up to 666 is absolutely not. Do you actually want to be unblocked or do you just want to make a point? Because your approach here is only going to guarantee that you're not unblocked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I want to be unblocked.
- Then acknowledge that your additions violate Wikpedia policy, agree not to attempt to add the material again, and tell us what else you intend to edit instead. Skyerise (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
- It appears that there is consensus that my additions violated Wikipedia policy which was never my intention. I won't attempt to add the material again. I will only make contributions that comply with Wikipedia policies in the future. DavidRussellLayton (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)