Beltshazar

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The writing on the wall, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soothsaying

The article Soothsaying has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Soothsaying. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 01:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Beltshazar (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The writing on the wall, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soothsaying

The article Soothsaying has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Elizium23 (talk) 00:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My reply to Elizium23

I know you read about my article on soothsaying but Did you read my talk page above for my pen name Beltshazar? Is explains soothsayer from the Book of Daniel. Actually, Daniel is the resource. It is all in quotes and referenced. You have to follow that line of thought. The references are Bible references explaining the Bible. It explains, somewhat, the quandry I am in interpreting Bible Prophecy. Because it is prophecy there can not be any "original" research. Prophecy, by definition is unknown; speculative. That is why I use Bible verse to explain Bible verse. I am not making anything up. There is logic to Bible verse that needs to be explained. I am just getting started. Consider this and pass it on to others in your special group trying to organize the Bible. This is it. No one else can explain this. Only an enigma by the name of Belteshazzar who is named in the Book of Daniel can explain the Book of Daniel and Revelation. But I need time to put a lot of material up to support the total material. I am ready to reveal the meaning of 666, the Beast, all the Heads, Horns, Horses, Kings and "Revelation." My interpretations are irrefutable especially when you read verse after verse interpreted into today's current events. For example, I figure you are into the Bible so do this. Go to Daniel chapter 8 and read about the 2300 days - that is the exact length of the Iraq war. The "Fiery Furnace" is a metaphor for the Bush Axis of Evil where he named three, but attacked Afghanistan instead of N. Korea and in the End, 4 walked free and unscathed. The "Bear" with "three ribs gnashing in its teeth" is Russia and the ribs are the three Caspian Sea republics - Khazazkstan is as large as Texas and Alaska combined and borders Iran/Afghanistan. Now is the time if you want to know who is the AntiChrist, the Pale Horse, the Ten Horns, 7 Heads, and a complete description of every spot and pattern on the body of a "leopard" plus the full meaning of the "mouth of a lion" and the "feet of a bear," Armageddon and the Apocalypse. You need to get more people involved because until you read enough of my words you will not understand the soothsaying. There is such a thing as a soothsayer. What he says is his saying, or Sooth-saying. Can you come up with a better word? Say it if you can! Thanks for any help you can give me. I just started as a user. I am not so much into editing as writing. I need to do this writing, or soothsaying to explain Daniel, Revelation and other prophets in the only way it can be done, at the end, by an enigma named Belteshazzar. Please read my other pages/articles so you can get a better understanding: Belteshazzar, Belshazzar, Writing on the Wall, Soothsayer, Cheers, Beltshazar

PS. My "Save" got tangled up in a conflict with another edit at the same time and I had to redo it. Please excuse any mistakes. Beltshazar (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Beltshazar (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's all really great to hear. However, Wikipedia is founded on certain policies and guidelines. You will need to read and abide by them if you expect to continue editing here. Here are some links to get you started. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Original research and synthesis is not permitted. You must cite reliable secondary sources to back up any assertions made. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and your own interpretations are not permitted. Thanks and good luck. Elizium23 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Beltshazar (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Helpme

Did you have a question you were trying to ask? Or were you trying to get Elizium23's attention? If you were trying to ask a question, please ask the question below and reinstate the helpme template. If you were trying to get Elizium23's attention, please note that in the future, you should do so by leaving a talkback on the user's page. This is formatted like so: {{talkback|Beltshazar}}. You simply leave that on the user's talk page, and it informs them that they have a message at your user talk page. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 19:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Immediate question and a broader Wkli question that is related

1. I read you needed "writers". I put up four article pages, one new and 3 were additions, under its own section called: Soothsayings by Belteshazzar. Other editors edited my work and then elizium came along and deleted everything. I read I had a "week" to respond and seek group opinion but before I could figure everything out, elizium deleted everything. He only sent me a delete warning for Soothsayer yet he deleted everything I wrote on 4 article pages. He did not leave one word anywhere. I have asked him to respond by putting a message on his talk page but have not heard from him. Even if elizium does undue his deletes, other editors may repeat his deletes which brings me to the broader question.

Thanks. I will keep that for reference. Meanwhile I am trying to pose the question of Interpretation vs. Original research on other Wiki project pages or whatever I can find to debate this issue. This is not between me and another editor. Wikipedia Bible prophecy pages currenty are a mess. I'm the writer who can make sense of it. But I am winging it here and admit I need help from any and all editors. The issue of interpretation or original research concerns everyone. All that is needed is for enough editors to group together and read enough of the soothsayings and interpretations to understand their significance to verse and current events unfolding now. I'm sorry, but I can't scream hurry any louder when I am writing. So I will put this up anywhere I can on Wikipedia. Please do the same and refer other editors to come here.

Beltshazar (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Question 2 Prophecy and Wiki "Original Research" rule

2. Bible Prophecy. How do you research it? Prophecy, by definition is about future events. Research can not be done on such an intangible. Yet, the Wiki articles on Daniel and Revelation are interpretations, or personal opinions of what someone thinks about the prophecy. For example, The Writing on the Wall in the Book of Daniel is interpreted by a Wiki editor to the best of his speculation. There is no RESEARCH to support prophecy so much as there are the Bibles own words which is what I use to explain my interpretations, or what I write. Wiki is begging for "writers" on religion to help with the mess it is. Now, when you finally get the person history has been waiting 2,500 years for, elizium deletes it before it even gets started. It is all INTERPRETATION. This is the quandary I want Wiki editors, in group, to resolve regardless of whether we undue elizium23 deletes of my writing and soothsayings.

Bible prophecy has to be considered differently than any other Wiki subject. Obviously, from reading anything related to the Books of Daniel and Revelation on Wikipedia, nobody knows what they are talking about. "Original research" does not apply because none of the prophecy has been researched in the traditional sense. Because it can not be researched as such, the Wiki explanations don't make any sense. Wki has some interpretation of Writing of the Wall, its meaning, no research attached to it in any way. The Wiki article on Writing on the Wall, the actual writing quoted in Daniel, is an interpretation by a writer no different than me. If my writing, soothsaying interpretation does not count because it is "original" than why does the other person's interpretation remain? His is "original research" too. Do you understand this point I am trying to make? I don't want to belabor it but is is a contradiction to delete my interpretaion yet leave another person's much poorer interpretation on Wiki. You need multiple interpretations. This is prophecy. Lets the words speak for themselves.

Do you understand my point? To get a better idea of what I am talking about you can go to the top of my talk page here and read my concerns from the first day I set up as a user. Also, go to my writings on Belteshazzar, Soothsayer, Soothsaying, and Belshazzar that elizium deleted, check the history and read my interpretations. Compare them to what you have. As a group of editors, a decision needs to be made based on the logic of the interpretations. Let my words speak for themselves. But I need time to write every chapter in Daniel and most of Revelation using the verseses themselves to explain everything. I am the only one doing that. I have spent 20 years researching this. I first figured out the 666 in about 1972 and have spent since then trying to prove it wrong but have accomplished nothing less than convincing myself that I am to play the role of Belteshazzar and tell everyone what they want to know, or as Danile describes my role: to "disolve doubts." Does anyone care to help me on this huge project?

How do we as a group of editors resolve this basic problem related to the Wiki "original research" rule that really does not apply to Bible prophecy? And would someone please undue the deletes that elizium23 made just so other editors can go to those pages and read it as a part in the overall debate regarding content of the article pages for Bible prophecy?

New Writer; not Editor

I am new at this. I am not an editor. I read you needed "writers", especially religion writers. I am a writer new to Wiki rules and editing. I have spent 2 weeks writing and figuring out how to use this, but am still floundering because I am writing first, and editing only my own writing. So bear with me. I am from another era, but that is another story. For now, regardless of skepticism, at least read what I have written which is only my prelude to understanding all the rest that follows. I can not just write who the Beast is without first setting it all up with chapter after chapter of verse that all supports everything else. For more on this go top or go to my deleted pages. For example, your Wiki interpretation is that the Antichrist is the Pope because of Bible reference to "seven hills" which the Wiki writer interpreted to possibly mean the seven hills of Rome. If you can leave that interpretation in the Wiki article then you must consider my interpretation of the Writing on the Wall. It is the prelude to the Beast of the Apocalypse with 7 heads, 10 plus 2 horns (not one other person has said or written that the Beast has 12 horns but I use Bible verse to show the reader the fact of the matter), body of a leopard, mouth of a lion and feet of a bear. But it will only work when all the chapters are interpreted in a logical understanding that "dissolves doubt." 666 - the "mark" and "sign" - alone will not dissolve doubt. But, all the other writing and soothsaying will support it and confirm it. And it is all done using Bible verse to support Bible verse interpretations. I a merely a writer connecting dots just like you want any of your writers to do when they connect dots from other people's research. I have spent 20 years researching something that, kind of, can not be researched because there are not any facts to present until some time in the future. That is why everyone's interpretation of Daniel, no matter who, doesn't make it. Nobody knows what they are talking about because it has not been researched because it is future events that have to happen for the research to follow. That leaves the world with interpretation. Knowing this, the writers of Daniel predicted a person in the future would interpret everything. They called that person Belteshazzar.

Help Undelete Belshazar, Belteshazzar, Soothsayhing, Soothsayer, Writing on the Wall.

IM Beltshazar, the phonetic penname writing for Belteshazzar. Because I am new at this, and more importantly, the significance of soothsaying, I am going to copy and paste this querry to other places in Wikpedia and hope I get a group response somewhere, somehow, asap because it is time. Japan Quake is the wakeup call; in another month, anyone reading this will know the truth of that. Beltshazar (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to your later helpme points

I've created this section to try to separate it for clarity. I apologize for the lengthiness of my response, but I'm simply trying to be thorough.

First I'm just going to clarify what happened to the articles. So, you contributed a lot of work to Belteshazzar, Belshazzar, Soothsaying, and The writing on the wall. Soothsaying has been proposed for deletion, which means that if the concerns of original research are not addressed, it will be deleted seven days from when it was tagged. This has not been violated. That page is still there. The other three articles have not been deleted, as you say, but rather redirected (in the case of Belteshazzar) or reverted to how they were before your edits (in the case of Belshazzar and The writing on the wall).

You're correct in that Wikipedia does need more writers. However, original research is not acceptable. I understand your concern that it's difficult to write about religion, as religion is not something that can easily be scientifically researched. What we do try to do is use information that has been compiled by reliable sources. If a reliable source interprets information from the Bible or other religious texts, that's fine. However, if a Wikipedia editor interprets this information him or herself, that is not alright. Even if a user was an expert on the topic that he or she was interpreting, we would not be able to accept the information without a reliable reference. This is simply how Wikipedia is run.

I'm going to try to explain to you how things work by refuting some of the things you've said:

• Yet, the Wiki articles on Daniel and Revelation are interpretations, or personal opinions of what someone thinks about the prophecy. Yes, this is true. They are compilations of interpretations of the prophecy that have been published in reliable sources. These sources are listed at the bottom of the pages, at Daniel#References and Book of Revelation#Notes and Book of Revelation#Notes. This shows that the ideas on the page do not belong to an unknown Wikipedia editor, but rather to people who are known to be knowledgeable about the subject.
• For example, The Writing on the Wall in the Book of Daniel is interpreted by a Wiki editor to the best of his speculation. Most of The writing on the wall is actually just text straight from the religious texts themselves, not interpretation. These texts are cited in the references section. However, I have left a template to show that the article needs more references that are independent of the religious texts.
• Bible prophecy has to be considered differently than any other Wiki subject. and How do we as a group of editors resolve this basic problem related to the Wiki "original research" rule that really does not apply to Bible prophecy? The original research policy applies to all Wikipedia articles. In fact, it is such an integral part of how Wikipedia is run that it is included in the five pillars of Wikipedia.
• If my writing, soothsaying interpretation does not count because it is "original" than why does the other person's interpretation remain? and If you can leave that interpretation in the Wiki article then you must consider my interpretation of the Writing on the Wall. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.
• I have spent 20 years researching this. Has any of your research been published in a reliable source? If so, it can be cited to prove your additions.
• For example, your Wiki interpretation is that the Antichrist is the Pope because of Bible reference to "seven hills" which the Wiki writer interpreted to possibly mean the seven hills of Rome. This is actually not "our Wiki interpretation". I assume you're referring to Antichrist#Protestant reformers, where it says "Many Protestant reformers, including Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, John Knox, and Cotton Mather, identified the Roman Papacy as the Antichrist." If you look closely, you'll see that there is a footnote after the sentence that leads to an outside article. This article is published elsewhere, and the author is identified at the bottom of the page as being somewhat of an expert on the subject. This sentence does not reflect the views of a random Wikipedia editor, but rather those of an outside expert.
• I a merely a writer connecting dots just like you want any of your writers to do when they connect dots from other people's research. We actually don't want this. This is considered synthesis, and is discussed in the original research policy.
• I am going to copy and paste this querry to other places in Wikpedia and hope I get a group response somewhere, somehow, asap because it is time. It is fine that you posted this message here and notified myself and Elizium23, but please do not copy and paste it elsewhere. This is considered canvassing.

So, the text you added will not be reinstated. If you have published work that would be considered a reliable source, you can use it to add some parts that can be directly cited. Do not reinstate all of the information without sources. I hope this helped, and feel free to ask any questions you may have. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to respond here. I don't see any response, though, am I missing something? – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 01:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm back. I just copied into the dispute editor re interpretation. Re "canvassing." I didn't mean that. Early when I first looked into Wikipedia I saw a project page seeking writers to help with the religion section. But I am not a religion subject. Prophecy is under religion but it is all about the future. It can not be researched until it happens. There aren't any prophecy experts out there to quote from. I am all you got, I'm it. Even if I published my three almost finished books, I am nobody to cite. Or, am I? Anyone can write and publish their own book today. Does that qualify?

We can continue this debate but it is the wrong one. This prophecy/interpretation/original research quandary needs to be debated at higher levels with more of the right people concerned contributing their thoughts. It looks like Wiki will not accept any of my writing even though it is all supported by "research" in that the Bible verse itself is quoted. I mean, you don't seem to get that part of it. All my writing is supported and referenced to Bible verse and outside material references to support the links and interpretations of prophecy. When you read my soothsayings, including quotes, about a third of everything written is by the Bible verse itself. All my writting is completely referenced to other writers, the writers of the Bible. You have to grasp that fact and then everything I have written is simply refering to other published writers - the people who wrote the Bible. What better references could you ask for? Cheers, Beltshazar Beltshazar (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so you wish to discuss your concerns with a wider swath of Wikipedians than us two. That's fair enough, but I will prophesy right now that you are going to receive a lot of the same type of answer from most experienced people as you have got from us already. Also, if I were you, I would carefully select one forum that seems most suited to your needs and follow the discussion there to its conclusion. If you copy-paste your request to a lot of different places then you are going to be accused of "forum-shopping" - see WP:FORUMSHOP and WP:PS.

With those caveats in place, here is a list of notice boards that might fit your subject matter. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity - Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts - Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

Please carefully read the introductions to each of these forums. Also, you may want to do a few searches of their archives to see if anyone has raised the same issues before. Search forms are provided right on the page for most of these locations. Good luck! Elizium23 (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the time you have put in explaining Wiki rules. I am only a buck private in the Wiki army and find the hierarcy difficult to figure out. I know it only takes time and a lot of reading but that is not why I became a user as you understand by now.

Let me pose a rewrite to you for Soothsayer

Soothsayer: a person who possesses "knowledge, and understanding," that is used for "interpreting of dreams and hard sentences."

Reference: Zacheriah Sitchen, his book: The Twelfth Planet, page 134.

My question is

Does this qualify as a writing or is it "original research" if I find a description that an accredited author wrote about? Can I pull it out of his book to put up on a Wiki article page? Is the way I have written it acceptable under Wiki rules? Beltshazar (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not original research, but it's also not taken from a reliable source. That particular author's work is not accepted by the scientific community. Surely you can find another source that says that same thing, though. It doesn't seem to be a particularly outlandish definition. I would, however, like to point out that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that alone would not be enough for a full article. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction:

I didn't realize Sitchen was not recognized. How about the Bible? Do you count biblle verse as being an acceptable source? Especially when it applies to the Bilbe and even more so, for prophecy? The words I attributed to Sitchen were only posed as a question but the words were taken directly from the Bible. The "queen" in Daniel described both Daniel and Belteshazzar as being the same quoted words I used. Go back to what you guys deleted and see what I wrote. My definition is all quotes taken from Bible verse. My words only connet the verses. I did that first for a definition. Then I went into content and gave you more examples all taken from Bible verse. All I did was connect the dots using Bible verse to support Bible verse. If you are going to publish Bible verse in Wiki then you need to understand that Bible verse is acceptable and that Wiki needs to grasp that prophecy does not fit into the Wiki idea of facts and sources.

Sorry I took so long to get back. The weather turned nice enough for me to clear brush and burn so I have had to play my other role of hermit in the middle of nowhere. I hitch-hike to town today to get some things so I expect I will get back to you tomorrow.

Cheers,

Beltshazar

Beltshazar (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bible can be used. See WP:Bible citation. Do be careful, however, to not necessarily take what is said in the Bible as fact. For example, if you were citing Gen. 1:1 ("In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth"), you couldn't say "The Earth was created by God.", as that is only one point of view. You'd have to say something like, "According to the Book of Genesis, God created the Earth." Make sure that it's clear that it is only one viewpoint, essentially. Sometimes direct quotes are useful for this (see WP:QUOTE).

As for the text you added, no, it is not all from the Bible. For example, in Soothsayer, you added "The "little book" is the Bible. Its words are "sweet as honey" to devote followers of scripture whose religious faith interprets the sayings of Jesus into wonderful homilies, parables and life lessons everyone should consider. But the truth behind the sweet metaphors is a harsh soothsaying when it turns "thy belly bitter"." This is all interpretation, which is not directly in the Bible. It is simply one viewpoint (yours) on the Bible. That is what constitutes original research: the "connecting of the dots". Bible verse is acceptable. It's the interpretation thereof that needs to be cited in reliable sources. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 17:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)