User talk:SanJuanCat

January 2023

Hello, I'm Philipnelson99. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to Prewrath rapture because they seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Philip, is there a specific reason my edits seemed inappropriate? I wrote a book - The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand - that supports and explains the prewrath rapture interpretation. I think it could be very helpful to people visiting the prewrath rapture wiki page. Also, feel free to visit my website - www.prewrathprophecy.com

Craig SanJuanCat (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your first account? Because I'm pretty sure I've seen your real name before here. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't a place to promote your work. Doug Weller talk 08:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, this is the first time I've tried to edit a wikipedia page. When you say "first account" are you meaning wikipedia accounts? If so, this is my only account. To your comment regarding promoting my work: What is the reason for the "Further reading" area on wikipedia if not to list books that explain the prewrath rapture?

Craig Reid SanJuanCat (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant Wikipedia accounts, thanks for the reply. You've got a conflict of interest, you can suggest things on article talk pages but not add your own book or website. Doug Weller talk 08:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, can someone else add my book to the "Further Reading" list? SanJuanCat (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SanJuanCat. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:SanJuanCat. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=SanJuanCat|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I have not received, am not receiving, and will not ever receive any compensation for my edits. Further, all revenues from the sales of my book are donated to non-profit ministries. If I have a conflict of interest, it is certainly not a financial or ethical conflict.

Craig Reid SanJuanCat (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Prewrath rapture, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Specifically the diagram. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, it appears you deleted the entire "Timeline" section from the article ...with a mention of "no secondary sources." I would argue that the Bible is the primary source and that the timelines that were added to the article are secondary sources. Following is Wikipedia's explanation of primary and secondary sources - with my additions/clarifications italicized in brackets:

"A secondary source [diagram of the timing of the end-times] is one that gives information about a primary source [the Bible]. In this source [diagram], the original information [Bible] is selected, modified and arranged in a suitable format. Secondary sources involve generalization, analysis, interpretation, or evaluation of the original information."

Do you agree or disagree that 1) the Bible is a primary source and 2) a diagram showing the chronological arrangement of the Bible's end-time events is a secondary source? ...and if you disagree with either 1) or 2), what is your position on either or both of those statements?

Thanks, Craig SanJuanCat (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, the diagrams were not reliably published sources. Just original research. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you mentioned two points in your edit: 1) original research and 2) no secondary sources added. Regarding #2, isn't the Bible the primary source and the diagrams the secondary source? SanJuanCat (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary on Wikipedia is basically shorthand for reliably published secondary sources . Doug Weller talk 21:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So is it your position that all the "Timeline" information (that you deleted) was not reliably published secondary sources? SanJuanCat (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Most had no sources, did you see the tag? Doug Weller talk 21:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was wrong. The information in "Timeline" cited a multitude of Bible verses, which is the primary source for this article. Did you not see all the cited Bible verses? SanJuanCat (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't get it. Of course I saw the verses, I'd have to be blind to miss them. Virtually that whole section was someone's interpretation of the primary sources in a 2008 edit. We simply do not allow that. It violates Wikipedia:No original research. Doug Weller talk 09:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you believe is Wikipedia's definition of "No original research"? ...and what is your source?

From the link you provided: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."

Since the Bible is the primary, reliable, published source, and the analysis/synthesis material from the "Timeline" information (which you deleted) serves to reach a conclusion that is stated by the Bible, and the specific Bible verses were cited, why would that "Timeline" information be considered original research?

Further, from the link you provided: "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." This describes the information that you deleted from "Timeline."

Why do you believe it violates "no original research"? SanJuanCat (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask at WP:NORN. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just posted this exchange on WP:NORN but I don't know if I did it correctly ...I didn't get a Notice for NOR like I did for COI below SanJuanCat (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You never do. Did you see a “subscribe” over your post? Click on it. Doug Weller talk 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. The thread is Prewrath Rapture. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Doug Weller talk 17:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]