ZebrahamZA

November 2024

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. Skyerise (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I have made relevant contributions to the talk pages on the relevant articles. ZebrahamZA (talk) 07:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What you need to do is read WP:SYNTH. You may not add your own observations to Wikipedia. You may only add observations that have been made in reliable secondary sources. Skyerise (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Number of the beast. Your edits do not appear to be constructive 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 your sandbox. Thank you. David Brooks (talk) 03:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, I have made relevant contributions in regard to the incorrect information that you identified into the talk page of the relevant article. ZebrahamZA (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 114 (number), you may be blocked from editing. Stop adding trivia and coincidences Meters (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 180 (number). Stop adding this type of material Meters (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Meters if one “steps out of line” from undefined hidden expectations, isn't it more justifiable simply to correct an edit in line with the undefined expectations rather than go on a political witch hunt to excommunicate mere information contributors? ZebrahamZA (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Your two edits on in the article "Mental health of Jesus"

The article concerns a specific issue and there are controversies (mutually questioned opinions for and against) cited in this issue. This is not an article about psychiatry. According to your logic, the "See also" section should also contain links to articles such as "Criticism of religion" or "Criticism of Christianity", but there aren't any. If someone is interested in psychiatry and the controversies surrounding it, they will find an appropriate article. In MOS:SEEALSO it is written: "articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category". Wikipek (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wikipek I'm not sure what you mean by ‘according to my logic’, but that article seems like a subject that precisely belongs to psychiatry, because psychiatry is the discipline of diagnosing mental health (of individuals), which is precisely what the Mental health of Jesus seems to be exploring.

I have left a comment on the article's talk page suggesting that anyone passing by with the time and interest ought to find sources that explore perspectives on the intersections between the Controversies about psychiatry and the mental health of Messianic figures, perhaps with reference to scholarship like that of Mary Boyle (psychologist). ZebrahamZA (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is not strictly related to psychiatry. It is a detailed article on the border of psychiatry, neurology, psychology, philosophy, history, theology and religion in general. It also contains the opinions of psychologists, neurologists, philosophers, historians, theologians. If there is an article on the psychiatric examination of the mental health of messianic figures in Wikipedia, it could be linked. But I don't think there is such an article. If there is a specific statement by Mary Boyle on the mental health of Jesus, it could be placed in the article. It is inappropriate to refer readers of this detailed article to very general and broad topics in which very loosely related general issues are discussed. Wikipek (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

November 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

ZebrahamZA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Excuse me. I do not understand why the content would be described as unsourced or poorly sourced. I have attempted to contribute information to pages about various natural numbers, and I feel that the administrative editorial powers are practicing double standards. I have reviewed various pages such as 66 (number), 81 (number), 114 (number), 153 (number), 154 (number), etc. and they list basic facts about the size of various books, such as the Bible having 66 Books, the Book of Isaiah having 66 chapters, the Tao Te Ching having 81 stanzas, the Qu'ran having 114 chapters, the 153 Hidden Words and Shakespeare's 154 sonnets. Furthermore, a number of the natural number pages list the relevant links to lists of highways with the same number in the see also sections.

I attempted to contribute to 166 (number) that there are 166 Gleanings from the Writings of Baháʼu'lláh.

I also attempted to contribute to 190 (number) that there are 190 paragraphs in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

I also edited a correction to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas as to the number of paragraphs contained in the book. It currently states there are 189 paragraphs. However, anyone referencing a physical copy of the book, or any online edition, can clearly identify that it has 190 labelled paragraphs, with complementary Notes, etc. So far as I am aware, stating that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas only has 189 paragraphs is mistruth. If the referenced Roshan Danesh personally counted the number of paragraphs and published in a review that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas contains 189 paragraphs, should we believe Roshan Danesh?

How many paragraphs were in the version of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas that Roshan Danesh was reviewing?

How many versions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are there?

What if Roshan Danesh actually wrote that there were 190 paragraphs in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas?

Could the 189 have been a typo from the person reviewing Roshan Danesh's work and entering a summary onto Wikipedia?

Should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having 189 paragraphs merely because someone published an article saying that it has 189 paragraphs, or should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having the number of paragraphs that it actually has when anyone looks at it?

I've just reviewed some of the guide to appealing blocks, and I'm not trying to complain, but rather describe what happened, for example-

Does @Skyerise believe that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas only has 189 paragraphs?

Does @Skyerise revert edits that are true or edits that are false?

I have contributed various other facts to Wikipedia including to page 19 (number), however this request is a basic overview of the main argument. Sure some of the facts might be borderline unreferenced calculations, however, in the case of facts relating to things with their own Wikipedia page that already outline the facts, are you saying that that is unsourced or poorly sourced? I could probably go into more specifics later, depending on inspiration, etc.

I acknowledge I have added material without reference links which I can avoid doing in future, however, I do not understand why material with various types of reference links to established facts, as well as error corrections, should be subject to being blocked. ZebrahamZA (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Excuse me. I do not understand why the content would be described as unsourced or poorly sourced. I have attempted to contribute information to pages about various natural numbers, and I feel that the administrative editorial powers are practicing double standards. I have reviewed various pages such as [[66 (number)]], [[81 (number)]], [[114 (number)]], [[153 (number)]], [[154 (number)]], etc. and they list basic facts about the size of various books, such as the Bible having 66 Books, the Book of Isaiah having 66 chapters, the [[Tao Te Ching]] having 81 stanzas, the [[Qu'ran]] having 114 chapters, the 153 [[Hidden Words]] and Shakespeare's 154 sonnets. Furthermore, a number of the natural number pages list the relevant links to lists of highways with the same number in the see also sections. :I attempted to contribute to [[166 (number)]] that there are 166 [[Gleanings from the Writings of Baháʼu'lláh]]. :I also attempted to contribute to [[190 (number)]] that there are 190 paragraphs in the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]]. :I also edited a correction to the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] as to the number of paragraphs contained in the book. It currently states there are 189 paragraphs. However, anyone referencing a physical copy of the book, or any online edition, can clearly identify that it has 190 labelled paragraphs, with complementary Notes, etc. So far as I am aware, stating that the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] only has 189 paragraphs is mistruth. If the referenced Roshan Danesh personally counted the number of paragraphs and published in a review that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas contains 189 paragraphs, should we believe Roshan Danesh? :How many paragraphs were in the version of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas that Roshan Danesh was reviewing? :How many versions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are there? :What if Roshan Danesh actually wrote that there were 190 paragraphs in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas? :Could the 189 have been a typo from the person reviewing Roshan Danesh's work and entering a summary onto Wikipedia? :Should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having 189 paragraphs merely because someone published an article saying that it has 189 paragraphs, or should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having the number of paragraphs that it actually has when anyone looks at it? :I've just reviewed some of the guide to appealing blocks, and I'm not trying to complain, but rather describe what happened, for example- :Does @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] believe that the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] only has 189 paragraphs? :Does @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] revert edits that are true or edits that are false? :I have contributed various other facts to Wikipedia including to page [[19 (number)]], however this request is a basic overview of the main argument. Sure some of the facts might be borderline unreferenced calculations, however, in the case of facts relating to things with their own Wikipedia page that already outline the facts, are you saying that that is unsourced or poorly sourced? I could probably go into more specifics later, depending on inspiration, etc. :I acknowledge I have added material without reference links which I can avoid doing in future, however, I do not understand why material with various types of reference links to established facts, as well as error corrections, should be subject to being blocked. [[User:ZebrahamZA|ZebrahamZA]] ([[User talk:ZebrahamZA#top|talk]]) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Excuse me. I do not understand why the content would be described as unsourced or poorly sourced. I have attempted to contribute information to pages about various natural numbers, and I feel that the administrative editorial powers are practicing double standards. I have reviewed various pages such as [[66 (number)]], [[81 (number)]], [[114 (number)]], [[153 (number)]], [[154 (number)]], etc. and they list basic facts about the size of various books, such as the Bible having 66 Books, the Book of Isaiah having 66 chapters, the [[Tao Te Ching]] having 81 stanzas, the [[Qu'ran]] having 114 chapters, the 153 [[Hidden Words]] and Shakespeare's 154 sonnets. Furthermore, a number of the natural number pages list the relevant links to lists of highways with the same number in the see also sections. :I attempted to contribute to [[166 (number)]] that there are 166 [[Gleanings from the Writings of Baháʼu'lláh]]. :I also attempted to contribute to [[190 (number)]] that there are 190 paragraphs in the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]]. :I also edited a correction to the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] as to the number of paragraphs contained in the book. It currently states there are 189 paragraphs. However, anyone referencing a physical copy of the book, or any online edition, can clearly identify that it has 190 labelled paragraphs, with complementary Notes, etc. So far as I am aware, stating that the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] only has 189 paragraphs is mistruth. If the referenced Roshan Danesh personally counted the number of paragraphs and published in a review that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas contains 189 paragraphs, should we believe Roshan Danesh? :How many paragraphs were in the version of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas that Roshan Danesh was reviewing? :How many versions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are there? :What if Roshan Danesh actually wrote that there were 190 paragraphs in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas? :Could the 189 have been a typo from the person reviewing Roshan Danesh's work and entering a summary onto Wikipedia? :Should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having 189 paragraphs merely because someone published an article saying that it has 189 paragraphs, or should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having the number of paragraphs that it actually has when anyone looks at it? :I've just reviewed some of the guide to appealing blocks, and I'm not trying to complain, but rather describe what happened, for example- :Does @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] believe that the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] only has 189 paragraphs? :Does @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] revert edits that are true or edits that are false? :I have contributed various other facts to Wikipedia including to page [[19 (number)]], however this request is a basic overview of the main argument. Sure some of the facts might be borderline unreferenced calculations, however, in the case of facts relating to things with their own Wikipedia page that already outline the facts, are you saying that that is unsourced or poorly sourced? I could probably go into more specifics later, depending on inspiration, etc. :I acknowledge I have added material without reference links which I can avoid doing in future, however, I do not understand why material with various types of reference links to established facts, as well as error corrections, should be subject to being blocked. [[User:ZebrahamZA|ZebrahamZA]] ([[User talk:ZebrahamZA#top|talk]]) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Excuse me. I do not understand why the content would be described as unsourced or poorly sourced. I have attempted to contribute information to pages about various natural numbers, and I feel that the administrative editorial powers are practicing double standards. I have reviewed various pages such as [[66 (number)]], [[81 (number)]], [[114 (number)]], [[153 (number)]], [[154 (number)]], etc. and they list basic facts about the size of various books, such as the Bible having 66 Books, the Book of Isaiah having 66 chapters, the [[Tao Te Ching]] having 81 stanzas, the [[Qu'ran]] having 114 chapters, the 153 [[Hidden Words]] and Shakespeare's 154 sonnets. Furthermore, a number of the natural number pages list the relevant links to lists of highways with the same number in the see also sections. :I attempted to contribute to [[166 (number)]] that there are 166 [[Gleanings from the Writings of Baháʼu'lláh]]. :I also attempted to contribute to [[190 (number)]] that there are 190 paragraphs in the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]]. :I also edited a correction to the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] as to the number of paragraphs contained in the book. It currently states there are 189 paragraphs. However, anyone referencing a physical copy of the book, or any online edition, can clearly identify that it has 190 labelled paragraphs, with complementary Notes, etc. So far as I am aware, stating that the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] only has 189 paragraphs is mistruth. If the referenced Roshan Danesh personally counted the number of paragraphs and published in a review that the Kitáb-i-Aqdas contains 189 paragraphs, should we believe Roshan Danesh? :How many paragraphs were in the version of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas that Roshan Danesh was reviewing? :How many versions of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas are there? :What if Roshan Danesh actually wrote that there were 190 paragraphs in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas? :Could the 189 have been a typo from the person reviewing Roshan Danesh's work and entering a summary onto Wikipedia? :Should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having 189 paragraphs merely because someone published an article saying that it has 189 paragraphs, or should the Kitáb-i-Aqdas be described as having the number of paragraphs that it actually has when anyone looks at it? :I've just reviewed some of the guide to appealing blocks, and I'm not trying to complain, but rather describe what happened, for example- :Does @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] believe that the [[Kitáb-i-Aqdas]] only has 189 paragraphs? :Does @[[User:Skyerise|Skyerise]] revert edits that are true or edits that are false? :I have contributed various other facts to Wikipedia including to page [[19 (number)]], however this request is a basic overview of the main argument. Sure some of the facts might be borderline unreferenced calculations, however, in the case of facts relating to things with their own Wikipedia page that already outline the facts, are you saying that that is unsourced or poorly sourced? I could probably go into more specifics later, depending on inspiration, etc. :I acknowledge I have added material without reference links which I can avoid doing in future, however, I do not understand why material with various types of reference links to established facts, as well as error corrections, should be subject to being blocked. [[User:ZebrahamZA|ZebrahamZA]] ([[User talk:ZebrahamZA#top|talk]]) 23:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

ZebrahamZA, your unblock request contains 3221 characters without markup or signature. This is a verifiable fact. Adding it to a page about the number 3221 would be inappropriate, though. Is this obvious and can we use this as a base of a discussion, or do you already disagree about this specific point? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I don't disagree, and yes it could be used as a base of a discussion.

I wish to clarify though, are you implying that all facts associated with each number should be removed from each number page?

Also, if it is true what you have counted about my unblock request, then if this unblock request discussion ever became well known in a far flung future, perhaps beyond my life span, as “The unsigned 3221 character unblock request”, then I personally would not be opposed to a fan base in the distant future writing reviews about it and listing it on a Wikipedia page about number 3221 if that is verily the number of characters contained in my unblock request. But the decision to add it to a Wikipedia page would not be up to me, that would be up to people in the far flung future, therefore I personally would not have a direct hand in it apart from being a character in the story about “The unsigned 3221 character unblock request”. Therefore I agree with you, apart from the identified caveats that are beyond my hand. ZebrahamZA (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.

Wikipedia is built on independent secondary sources which have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. There's none about the number of characters in your unblock request.

Is there one for the content added in Special:Diff/1259442927? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There is not a secondary source for Special:Diff/1259442927 (yet), but that contribution has already been reverted anyway.

However, what about these contributions that were reverted: Are the facts already specifically mentioned on their Wikipedia pages not supposedly from a source?

• Special:Diff/1259465583
• Special:Diff/1259423723
• Special:Diff/1259440261
• Special:Diff/1259520943
• This one in particular is a secondary source, because a different author cites a fact that was identified by Shaykh Ahmad, who was long deceased by the time the referenced source was written and published: Special:Diff/1259432225

Also why was Special:Diff/1259464155 reverted? ZebrahamZA (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The block is about problematic contributions independently of any constructive ones in between. This doesn't mean that the listed diffs are fine, it just means that listing a few even perfect edits doesn't really work as an argument against the block.

The fact (assuming it even is one) added in Special:Diff/1259465583, compared to all the others on the page, appears to be rather random and irrelevant to the number itself. The number of chapters in the Quran is clearly more relevant than a house number of a church cofounder's birth, at least if only these facts by themselves are compared without additional context.

Finding suitable inclusion criteria for trivia on number pages can be tough; the verifiability of material explicitly doesn't guarantee inclusion. When there is a dispute about whether something verifiable should be included in an article, those who favor inclusion are required to obtain a consensus (almost always on the article's talk page) before the material can be added back to the article.

Regarding Special:Diff/1259442927: Then this seems to be original research. Original research can be factually true yet still lacks relevance for Wikipedia.

If you were unblocked, I'd currently expect more of these contributions to come. As long as that's the case, however, the encyclopedia benefits from the block. To me personally, an unblock request would have to demonstrate the opposite to be convincing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I suppose if the blocking powers are adamant then so be it.

I imagine that manufacturing the appropriate consensus on the various talk pages to have various edits approved would require someone to muster a wikistorm from interested groups of people.

So strange to require all that effort simply to investigate changing a number from 189 to 190, and to list various articles of interest on some pages. ZebrahamZA (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

New person here, i think ZebrahamZA could be forgiven if he gives up from making poorly sourced edits. NotSoTough (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

(ec) Since you keep raising your Kitáb-i-Aqdas edit, the number of verses in the English translation of the Kitáb-i-Aqdas has been listed in our article as "189" for many years without anyone questioning that number on the talk page. You changed it to "190" without an edit summary, without citing a source, and incorrectly calling it a minor edit (it is not). user:Skyerise undid you with the summary "revert to previously sourced number". We have a source, the number has been uncontested at "189" for a long time, and you didn't explain your edit or provide a new source, so the undo seems reasonable. The source in the paragraph is not easily accessed online one so I looked for other sources. There has been more than one translation, and possibly some of them have different numbers of paragraphs, but the "fully authorized" one from 1992 does indeed have 190 numbered paragraphs. I will make the change and add a src. And none of this has anything to do with your disruptive number edits and block. Meters (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I have jumped through the hoops required to access the cited JSTOR ref and it also says "190", so I will not add a new ref. Meters (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Meters Thank you for your affirmative action, and have a good Day of the Covenant (Bahá'í). ZebrahamZA (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@Meters Now that the typo has been identified and the number of paragraphs in the Kitáb-i-Aqdas have been verified, should it be included as information on the article for 190 (number) (e.g. Special:Diff/1259520621)? ZebrahamZA (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not proxying edits for you, and you should not be discussing anything but your block while you are blocked. Meters (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

So far as I understand, all the "unsourced" edits have been reverted, so what is the point of the block?

I am trying to understand if the following are not reliable and are included as the reason for the block:

• Special:Diff/1259520621
• Special:Diff/1259432225
• Special:Diff/1259423723
• Special:Diff/1259440261
• Special:Diff/1259520943
• Special:Diff/1259521953

Are they? ZebrahamZA (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Your unsourced edits have been reverted, but that does not guarantee you won't make further unsourced edits in the future. 331dot (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)