User talk:Preston Kavanagh

March 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Huldah has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Huldah was changed by Preston Kavanagh (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.93526 on 2017-03-01T16:54:57+00:00.

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Home Lander (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Son of man, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Son of man was changed by Preston Kavanagh (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.866408 on 2017-03-01T19:27:38+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Son of man. Home Lander (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing: please do not insert references to your own work into articles
Hello, Preston Kavanagh. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
 * instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
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 why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Favonian (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your prompt commentary. For 30 years, I have worked on the study of Biblical text - using a cipher code and the assistance of well known and distinguished scholars. My input into Wikipedia is simply a small piece of the work that I have contributed to this field. I have written and published four books on my own and one with another scholar. Although my work may be considered controversial by some, it still adds breadth to the field of knowledge. As a Harvard trained biblical scholar, I take this work quite seriously.

My thoughts on Huldah offer a significant example. Her name is barely mentioned in Scripture, and thus nary a book or article has ever been written about her. But my techniques have uncovered her incredible influence upon Psalms, Proverbs, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and much else. Huldah is one of the great women of antiquity. Indeed, I wrote an entire book about her. But if no one else is aware of these things, how can we expect comments from other scholars about her for me to cite?

My use of probabilities and with the results thereof were noted some years ago as significant by Herman Chernoff, Harvard Professor of Statistics. My findings add historical relevance to the Exile period. Some of the discoveries are identity of DTR and the Suffering Servant. I also have found the authorship of a third of the psalms and much of Proverbs. Above all, I identified the tragic event (failure to take and hold Jerusalem in 573) that marked the nadir of the Exile. I am 84 and care only that the bulk of these discoveries-and the techniques that made them possible- be passed along to other scholars. The best vehicle for doing so seems to me to be Wikipedia.

I am anxious to read your thoughts on the best way to pass the important work of my lifetime along.

Respectfully, Preston Kavanagh


 * Preston, wikipedia does not publish original research, only what has been reported in reliable, secondary sources. This means your work can only be cited here if it has first be cited by others. Wikipedia also has a clear Conflict of interest policy which says you should not add your own work. So, wikipedia is not the best vehicle for you to pass along your work (see WP:FORUM), you can do that via your own website or another self publishing platform. Regards, Melcous (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)