User talk:Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime

October 2020
Hello, I'm 1subAtomic. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Steve Price (broadcaster), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page.   ❯❯  1sub Atomic   (💬Talk)  14:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

i am new to this platform and have responded on the talk page link you provided in your message which I received by email. I have only now found this notification as it was not appearing in the wikipedia app but only the browser. I have no idea how to find my message to you and disseminate it here instead. If you are unable to locate it, please advise and I will make a repeat of it as best I can remember, or a close summary. Thank you Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 19:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC) ❯❯ 1sub Atomic   (💬Talk)  19:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page John 20:7 did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Parable of the talents or minas, 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. Tacyarg (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I undid your edits to Number of the beast
Hello. First of all, I'd like to remind you that verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. It's your responsability to provide inline citations to reliable, unbiased sources in order to support the content that you are adding to this encyclopedia. Moreover, Wikipedia does not allow original research and requires its editors to maintain an impartial tone. Therefore, I had to revert your latest contributions to that article as per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:SUBJECTIVE and WP:IMPARTIAL. ❯❯ 1sub Atomic   (💬Talk)  11:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my error. I am going to study the rules very well and carefully.

Why is it that you have to revert and delete all my changes? Are you saying not one line or reference was impartial? If you have read through my edits, could you not preserve even one line? As I am still quite ignorant of the application of many of the rules, could you please do me a favour and tell me if there is a rule which refers to the deleting of edits which are valid? I assume it says something like “if someone does valid edits but at least one out of multiple are invalid then all edits by that user can be reverted.” Would you please be so kind as to direct me to where I can validate that rule?

I’m not understanding how my source was biassed. My writing included original research, you are correct. I accept for that to be removed. It was a newbie error. I admit that and I am sorry. But the missing information about 666 being the number of the sun god as calculated by the amulet, how was the source biassed? It included pictures of religious artefacts from antiquity found by archeologists, just like the fragment references on the current page. It gave mathematical formulae and calculations for the triangle number which was already eluded to in the article, without referring to the name of the type of number, or its significance in antiquity or at the time of the writing of Revelations. If a reference to 1+2+...35+36=666 is there already, and a reference to the God-man Jesus’ name in Greek adding to 888, then how can a reference to the god whose number is calculated on the page, be biassed?

As a lawyer I must tell you the truth, our understanding of bias is very different. If there is a perception of bias (usually generated by a conflict of interest) with a judge or magistrate, we are required to ask them to respectfully recuse themselves from a case. Bias leads to an _unfair_ judgment or result, because something in the life or mind of the judge, or someone/thing of influence to the judge, compels a certain result regardless of the facts, and in spite of the stronger arguments.

The source I used addressed more widely the topic than the page currently canvasses. It discusses 666, 616 and 606, gives historical physical evidence and more detail on the wiki explanations that are already there, and in the end stated a plain and rational conclusion based on the available evidence. The wiki page has no information on any of the numbers to assist an unbiassed person in their assessment as to which rendering is likely to be the actual and correct number. You may think that means it is unbiassed that way, but it is the opposite, with all due respect. By excluding the reference to the significance of 666 in antiquity and in terms of a religious figure, the wiki, by omission, gives the reader the misconception that all number options for the beast are equally as possible, and that there is no real way to know which option is more likely to be the correct rendering. Of course that is not accurate. Just as the 888 historical identity is referred to on the page already, so should the 616 historical identity and the 666 historical identity, both of which were contained in my reference.

Just wondering please, do you have any conflicts of interest that you have declared that I should read before posting to you again? Like a fool I am writing without having any info on your background posts. Also, are bots allowed for this site and do you use one to assist you with the editing? Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at QAnon, you may be blocked from editing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:50, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to QAnon. Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  07:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

vandalise? pardon me? i’m so sorry perhaps I have misunderstood something. please forgive my ignorance. I reviewed the material on neutrality and realised that I accidentally disseminated some of the text on the entry page rather than put that on the talk page. i am very sorry for that error. I am brand new to this. i am so sorry. I reviewed what I had added and saw that it offered a referenced counter perspective to what was already there, in a very reasonable way, but I had no idea that I had contravened a technicality in the way the language was composed.

what confused me was that the page kept reverting in a shorter amount of time (literal seconds, only) than it would take to load the page, read the additions, check my references, aquire and access the references and then read them, and then evaluate what I wrote in light of them, and decide that my array of changes all contravened the rules, and then revert the page. As I am pretty sure this was not done, and in fact the time before reversion was shorter than I would expect it to take to read all of my additions, then I assumed a bot had been employed to revert any changes, or that someone deletes any changes in their entirety without reading them, if they take a more holistic viewpoint, or if they come from a non-authorised and vetted user who will comply with the bias and slant of the article as it stands. In fact, I am still confused about this point. That is the reason I tried to reload several edit attempts, I can assure you of that. When I tried to reedit what I wrote, by the time I pressed submit I found that I could not save changes because it had been reverted once again. While i was being completely genuine with my referenced additions, I calculated that whoever was reverting the page could not have been, because of the time frame employed and the totality of time taken to effectuate the reversion. If my calculations are erroneous, please detail for me where I have gone wrong. It is entirely possibly that I am missing some important piece of information as to why all changes, no matter what, even additions, and referenced additions, are not allowed.

another thing I might request please is that you might consider to correct my language to adhere to the policies of the site, in your experienced and unbiassed opinions, since I provided references for the additions, and did not delete anything that was already there. I simply tried to neutralise the article by adding some additional references. If this was a mistake, I am very sorry for this. I was in no way trying to “vandalise” the page, I can assure you. As a lawyer, I am wiser than to make unfounded disruptions to the page, because I understand legally what their effect can be. Just as I reserve the right to litigate against anyone who defames me, so too would I expect someone else to do the same to me if I did something actionable like falsely accuse someone of a crime. That is because I am not a hypocrite. So I can assure you on this basis, that I would never intentionally “vandalise” the page. i hope you can believe me. Vandalism is a crime against property (both physical and intellectual), and a serious allegation to make. The publishing of an untrue allegation against someone can constitute criminal a criminal or civil wrong, and even if the allegation is true, but is broadcast with the intention of damaging someone’s reputation, in some jurisdictions like my own, this can also constitute defamation, even if the allegation is prima facie founded.

Back to the article at hand, there is only one line which I believe requires urgent neutralising, and that is the reference to the articles stating “no part of the theory are based on fact.”. I think it has 5 references. Surely, the published books and interviews in printed newspapers and printed magazines, and on television news and current affair programs, are entitled to have their articles referenced in this wikipedia posting? So how, do you say, can I do that within the rules as you understand them to be? If you claim there is no way, then you are establishing, with all due respect, that edits are not allowed to neutralise this extremely aggressively written article. The article says qanon is a conspiracy theory (a pejorative) and that “no part” is true, but not just that, that “no part” is “based on fact” and somehow at least 4 different references arrive at that exact conclusion, independently and reliably. A massive statement like that, according to the reading of the rules, needs a proportionate mass of support. Since I have at least 50 published references including court transcripts, which, when similarly condensed, say that one part of the theory is based on fact, what then can we do about this in this posting? It is not very difficult to establish references which neutralise that loaded one line summary of all those references. if the Qanon theory is entirely non-factual, but just one element is based on fact, then the current entry requires addition to comply with the rules. If one part of the theory has a fact in it, then that sentence also requires qualification. I would be willing to wager, that, mental illness aside, a considerable majority of all statements are “based on fact.”. If you familiarise yourself with “SCAN” you would become aware of this.

From my updated understanding of neutrality, these wikipedia articles must simply be a compilation of assertions, made in what are considered to be reliable publications. We know for a fact that some of the references are not reliable, and that has been established. So does reliable refer then only to widely consumed? What is your take on this? Statutory interpretation requires detailed and elaborate techniques to extract the meaning of the words and their application, in the same way it would when interpreting religious texts. All words have connotations, and meaning which are disseminated beneath the surface. This changes depending on the country of origin of the reader and the language used to write the article, etc.

It is very easy to block me, I am sure. Since I don’t know how to defend myself on this platform, it makes it even easier. But would that prove my references did not balance out the aggressive and selectively referenced article? I would challenge you to consider that it would not. Perhaps editing my edit to comply with your understanding, might serve your agenda as neutral and politically centred editors better. It is what I am forced to do, to work with what is there. Can I delete the whole page and say it is not neutral, because it selectively quotes only certain references from one view point, when references exist from opposing viewpoints, thereby embedding bias within the article? Probably not, because I would get blocked. Can i block you? As far as I know, I cannot.

I am appealing with you please to do what is right, please, according to the rules and guidelines. It is only 1 line that requires urgent addressing, and I won’t bother with the rest of the bias for now. “No part of the theory is based on fact” is the offending line, and it has 4 or 5 articles as references to that statement. That statement cannot be neutral, as it is the author’s summary made after dissemination of the articles, or it is the mere application of commentary, which is also a contravention of the rules as far as I understand the meaning of them. Again I have used established rules of interpretation which are used to interpret laws used to execute or imprison murderers for life, so which by all means would be equipped to interpret to be applied to wikipedia’s “laws” so to speak. I learned and use rules of interpretation as a lawyer, and a follower of a published religious text. I have at least 5 published references, plus court case transcript material, which establish the claim that at least one (1) part of the theory is “based” on fact, as I said. Not including this information would, in my humble opinion, interpret the rules to mean that neutrality requires and not just allows references to be loaded in order to give a slanted, biassed or one-sided perspective which fulfil the technicalities of the rules, so long as no other editor wishes to raise an objection like I have. I am pretty sure the rules were not meant to be read in that way, because it would make the site a mockery, which it is not. Posts like “weasel words” further confuse me, because, again, the language is loaded. Millions of readers rely on this site, as it brings free information to the people. According to Mark Zuccerberg, head of facebook, information is the real equaliser in terms of disparity between rich and poor, and I agree with him on that. If a large chunk of vital and factual and truthful information, contained in eligible references, is not allowed to appear, then the information is not the great equaliser at all, but is weaponised, and we all know weapons are designed to cause harm, just as weaponised language does. The oath sworn in a courtroom prior to giving testimony requires the truth to include “the whole truth.”. Where there are disagreements as to what the truth is, or where information is being compiled like here, the truth is what reliable publications claim the truth is, and the whole truth is a broader selection of the available references to include more than one viewpoint, in light of the wikipedia rules. I believe my references do satisfy this, and should not have been reverted in totality.

If we are able to cooperate and maintain a level of civility, it would avoid the expense and stress of escalating the matter. Threats should be the last port of call, not the first or second. I want to understand what your problem is, as I would hope you want to understand what my problem is. Such are the pros and cons of the creative commons, and what in legal and political circles is termed formally and historically as “the tragedy of the commons,” if you are familiar with that concept.

I look forward to your carefully considered response, AFTER reading what I have written. I thank you in advance for your intention to follow the rules and to do what is right, and from refraining to engage in criminal or civil wrongs against me, and refraining from subjecting me to unwarranted sanctions or to a course of conduct, which when taken together, could be considered tantamount to harassment or cyber bullying or discrimination.


 * please forgive any typographical errors, the spell check on this device seems to alter and remove words which are written intentionally and spelled correctly, and does so without notice. I mean no disrespect by sending a document with grammatical errors. I have attempted to proof this document prior to sending, but even corrections get re-auto-spelled as I am making them. I apologise for this deficiency but there is no way that I know by which I am able to avoid it.  Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NNH details no entitlement to block me. The reasons given by the blocker are libellous, and not backed by empirical data. If his reasons were 100% true they would still violate the rules on blocking. Blocking is not for personal flexing or penalising. I had already stopped editing and reached out on talk for more experienced perspectives. The block being invoked to protect the status quo hinders building of the encyclopaedia. It’s also defamatory, and unlawful discrimination. A failure to remove the slurs against me and the block within 24 hours will result in further action. Thank you in advance for following the spirit of the rules. Naturalresident lawoftheland notadmiralty notmaritime (talk) 06:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 06:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

UTRS 35823
is now closed. My response is blockquoted below. -- Deep fried okra ( talk ) 12:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)