User talk:Hungarywhitebear

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Hungarywhitebear, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Hafspajen (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

II Revelation[edit]

Please review our policies on reliable sources and original research; they will explain why material about II Revelation doesn't belong here unless you can find better sources for it than jkoda.org. Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The II Revelation is a recently written noncanonical book that intimately details information on Gabriel, that is not something that falls within reliable sources, because factual accuracy of divine revelations cannot be distinguished. The material is on-point, it is for readers to decide whether they believe it or not. All bible books were noncanonical before they were canonized. If a recently made movie was released featuring Gabriel as such, it also would be relevant. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm Wikiisawesome. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Gabriel— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wia🎄/tlk 00:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The II Revelation is a recently written noncanonical book that intimately details information on Gabriel, that is not something that falls within reliable sources, because factual accuracy of divine revelations cannot be distinguished. The material is on-point, it is for readers to decide whether they believe it or not. All bible books were noncanonical before they were canonized. If a recently made movie was released featuring Gabriel as such, it also would be relevant. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RS for some information on how to identify reliable sources of information. II Revelation appears to be a self-published source by one Jason Steven Koda. Can you demonstrate that it is a reliable source of information? Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be verified reliable, as to whether the author actually had these divine revelations? You don't seem to have any understanding of the book at all. It is a modern day prophetic book, that is not rehashing historical data. You cannot obtain a degree to become a prophet. What, does it need to be authenticated by the Pope to reliable? II Revelation does not espouse to be an ancient text of any sort. The facts there in are faith-based, rather than objective facts.

Sources used on Wikipedia need to be reliable and verifiable. Further, there is a prohibition on original research on Wikipedia. I understand your concerns about whether divine revelations can be authenticated, but unfortunately divine revelation is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 00:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such guidelines that say divine revelation is not a reliable source. It is a book published on Amazon.com I see plenty of literature that is attached as sources or references, or modern topics of interest. The whole persona of Gabriel is based off of divine revelation. So, you are saying none of these sources are reliable. It doesn't make sense. II Revelation isn't based on research; therefore there is nothing that needs to be verifiable or reliable. It is at the minimum, a modern creative work that describes Gabriel; and harmonizes with other biblical verses.Hungarywhitebear (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I do not understand what your problem is. II Revelation gives a more complete picture of Gabriel, as a modern work of literature, that may believed by some to be a divine revelation of Jesus Christ. It is something that is of paramount importance in the world, that there be educational discussion on whether it is or not. That outweighs any of your interpretations of reliable source policy. Because, in reality, there is no way for any reliable source of information on spiritual beings to be proven. All that could be proven is history and origins of a particular source (like an ancient text). The II Revelation's origins and history, are forthright, that it was recently published by the author Jason Koda, the prophet, and that it is up on Amazon.com; with a link to the jkoda.org site there, as the official website and version of it. Wikilinks features links to modern literature that is relevant on subject matter, and television etc. So, even if it were not a divine revelation, it would have relevance and be acceptable under current norms. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hungarywhitebear, have you looked through the guidelines at WP:RS and WP:SELFPUB? It seems that II Revelation is posted on Koda's own website. That makes it a self-published source, which can only be used in the cases set out at WP:SELFPUB. Since the material is making exceptional claims about Gabriel and does not appear to be a reliable source of information about Gabriel, it regrettably cannot be used on Wikipedia. If you want a second opinion as to the document's reliability, you are welcome to check at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, however. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 15:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement lacks total comprehension of the policy. You "self-published bias," is saying that a commercial factor is solely what is used to determine the authenticity of the work; of whether a big monopoly publisher can make money off of it. The II Revelation being a divine revelation, specifically states that the author is not allowed to charge money for it (thus it was not rejected by publishing houses for being unreliable, but was never offered to them). The book doesn't make exceptional claims about Gabriel, it makes ones that harmonize with the bible; claims which cannot be disputed or proven either way. So, what you are saying, is if millions of people eventually believe in the II Revelation, and it is still self-published, that it would still be banned from Wikipedia.

Hungarywhitebear (talk) 15:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if the claims cannot be proven in any way, then they are unsuitable for Wikipedia because they are not verifiable. I encourage you to take a look at the links in this comment and my previous one. If you think the source is reliable, as mentioned you are welcome to take it up at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, but I do not think they will find this source to be reliable either. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 15:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking in circles. You are saying that something is not a reliable source, that could never have a reliable source. Please name for me one reliable source of information on Gabriel, that can be proven. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable source" has a specific technical meaning on Wikipedia, as described on WP:RS, a page to which you've been pointed several times. --Macrakis (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read reliable source, and it does not seem to be relevant to sources of "spiritual visions;" as any information on Gabriel would be. It involves fact-checking. And, you just said, because the II Revelation verses on Gabriel can't be proven, that it is not a reliable source. So, you are just talking in circles. Because you can't show me one source of information on Gabriel that can be proven. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things which may be true, but are not "verifiable" in the WP sense. See WP:TRUTH for discussion of the dictum "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". Wikipedia does not claim to include everything that is true. --Macrakis (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that there is a way to verify any biblical verses. So, I really do not believe that is relevant. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you read our policies carefully, you will see that bible verses are considered to be primary sources and not reliable sources per se. When and if there is a serious secondary literature around II Revelation, it should be discussed in WP, but not before. --Macrakis (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The primary source policy states that they can be used, as long as they are not the whole article. Since the II Revelation merely articulates a brief factual account of what the author eye-witnessed, that is not debatable by anyone; and there are no interpretations being made of it; merely citations that there is parallels with the book of Daniel description; then it certainly is acceptable. There is no subjective editorial credibility being given to it that is not backed by a reliable source. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:ONEDAY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the link is relevant, when I am not writing an entire article about II Revelation; I merely quoted a few verses for an article on Gabriel, of relevance. Second of all, I am not promoting a new word, idea, or invention. Notoriety is only relevant, when it involves writing an entirely new article on a topic; that it must be considered of value by someone. Information on Gabriel, historic, and how it is evolving in recent literature and media, is all relevant to the topic of the Gabriel, which has well-established notoriety. I think your getting too deep into the commercial value of the book and saturation into media, rather than its relevance, as a modern noncanonical primary source work on the topic. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't edit war: use the talkpage![edit]

Your recent editing history at Gabriel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another problem. I understand that it's frustrating that you're not getting any traction for your wish to include II Revelation in the Gabriel article, but please note that Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. This post of yours attacks the people disagreeing with you, calling them close-minded and accusing them of ganging up and actually of "fraud". The edit summaries here, here and here are if possible even ruder. (Personal attacks in edit summaries are worse because they can't easily be removed, they remain in the history.) I do understand that you're a new user, and that you're frustrated, but it might be a good idea to avoid editing when you're angry — cool down first, go for a walk or something. Bishonen | talk 12:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not frustrated at all. I just want these people to be honest with themselves. I didn't edit war. I set up a topic on the discussion page to figure out what these people are talking about. Then I simply removed all of my other edits, because what these editors were trying to do was, take the revelations that came from the II Revelation, attributing them to some other sources. They like the wisdom of the II Revelation, that Gabriel is an archangel, and that he is described in Daniel; but they do not like to attribute the enlightenment to the second revelation it came from. I am not going to even argue with these people. They can make up all of the excuses they want; it is a waste of time trying to talk to nerds. Nerds will just make stuff up whenever they are wrong, to try and make you look dumb. Hungarywhitebear (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]