User talk:Ahtleswings

September 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 666 (number) ‎, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. And please read WP:MINOR Meters (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I did not make any changes to the (666) number pages outside of the bible text. The edit is based on scripture "And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:" The Greek χάραγμα (charagma)

Noun - Accusative Neuter Singular

Strong's 5480: Sculpture; engraving, a stamp, sign. From the same as charax; a scratch or etching, i.e. Stamp, or sculptured figure. According to the Biblical Greek the mark of the "666" could be a stamp or etching on the forehead.

It is kind of creepy, but it is biblical. Tattoos, can be erased, digital chips can be hacked, but it is not possible to get rid of the branding of the skin. I hope I did not scare you, since it scared me. Anyways, you may remove it, if you consider it offensive. "13Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother." (Romans 14). Thank you and God bless.

Adan Turcios. Ahtleswings (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one was scared, nor offended. That's not the reason for the reversion. There were a number of problems with your edit that caused it to be reverted. First, what you're adding is focused on the "mark" part of things. This article is about the number itself, so your edit was essentially off-topic for the article. Second, you identified your edit as "minor", and it is not a minor edit. Improper use of the "minor edit" designation can be considered to be disruptive editing. Please read WP:MINOR. Lastly, you did not cite a source, thus what you added is considered original research. Strong's would be a source (which would need to be cited), but you went beyond what Strong's 5480 says adding interpretive content which requires a source. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The material has nothing to do with this article. Any tattoo, say of a butterfly, is also a mark on the skin but we don't mention them here. Meters (talk) 21:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]