Jump to content

User talk:tgeorgescu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LutherVinci (talk | contribs) at 03:03, 5 October 2021 (→Discussions related to Conservative Christianity: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit, how should they behave and how conflict gets mediated. Everybody is entitled to occasional mistakes, but persisting in mistakes will get you blocked from editing. Our wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. The decision to obey our rules is always personal, but it has enormous consequences for one's activity inside Wikipedia. I cannot decide for you, but I can tell you that it is wise to obey our rules. So, it's not that I like to see you blocked. I would like that you learn from your mistakes and become a productive editor. But if you are not up to the task, you will be blocked. I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. The key point about getting to read about our rules is changing your behavior. We want you to behave according to the rules of our encyclopedia, if you cannot behave you will be blocked or banned. I will report you to admins if it is clear to me that you don't want to comply with WP:RULES.

I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is. (Dutchies don't beat around the bush, but bluntly tell you what's wrong.) I'm blunt but not mean. I could appear mean, but in fact I am only defending the norms and values of this website. I am very harsh on bigots, but reasonable and conciliatory with reasonable people. With people which present themselves as reasonable, I am much more conciliatory than other experienced users. If I can reasonably give you the benefit of doubt, I will do it, otherwise I have a low tolerance for bullshit. I have only become an anti-bigotry vigilante because of the unending attacks of fundamentalists upon our secular encyclopedia. I am very tolerant with those who don't deride science/history/our encyclopedia. According to prisoner's dilemma, The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness". I'm usually acting as the first line of defense: just because you fooled me it doesn't mean your edits will be accepted by other established editors.

I am neither humble (thinking that nothing can be really known, so everything goes) nor cocky (thinking that I know everything).

I don't hate editors as persons; I hate rule-breaking. I consider that any editor can change his/her mind/behavior at any moment. Few edit warriors do that, but that's another matter. As long as you know when to stop, you can get away with almost anything at Wikipedia. It's not the mistake which is a matter of being blocked or banned, but persisting in that mistake. Exceptions: outing and legal threats. When the community thinks that you made a mistake, accept the judgment of the community.

If you get criticism compliant with WP:RULES, accept the criticism and comply with it. If you have started a conflict, stop the conflict and offer your excuses for it. If you seek to avoid blocks or topic bans through WP:SOCKS you will get banned from Wikipedia. We are tolerant, but not retarded.

I'm not absurd: if you give me WP:RS showing that you're right, I will write myself from your POV. Seriously, the deal is this: give me sources that you advocate a major academic POV and I will write from this POV.

Wikipedia has a purpose, it has norms and values; those who violate these get blocked or banned. I am prepared to explain you these norms and values, otherwise to those that do not heed these I believe that giving the cat enough rope it will hang itself. But we're not a clique: everyone who earnestly obeys our WP:RULES may join us. (Yes, yes, Wikipedia has to have rules; we cannot run such a website without rules.)

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Imho, using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience is worse than using it to promote criminal behavior (seen that definitions of what is a crime largely depend upon the country). For my contributions to Wikipedia I could get the death penalty in several countries (e.g. in North Korea for bourgeois propaganda, in Iran and Saudi Arabia for blasphemy, sorcery and LGBT-friendly propaganda—what Wikipedia sees as mainstream science, they see as propaganda; in totalitarian countries ideology trumps reality).

If you are here to complain about my edits in respect to porn addiction: there is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. None of that has anything to do with my own person, does it? WP:ACTIVISTS could not figure out if I am pro-porn or anti-porn, so they accused me of being both. Same applies to being pro-Christian and anti-Christian: some have accused my of being outright Antichristic, while others have accused me of writing ads for born-again Christians.

The idea that the Bible was copied 100% exactly, that it lacks any mistake and any contradiction, that it has not been severely contradicted by mainstream archaeology is bigotry, not Christianity. The definition of Christianity isn't "the Bible is without error".

In the long term, reasoned argument and good quality sources works, hysterical accusations of bias and malfeasance simply get you shown the door.[1]

— Guy Chapman

Remember: truth is my weapon and if you misbehave, I will use it against you. If you want to accuse me of something nasty, present evidence or shut up forever. I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth.

References

  1. ^ Chapman, Guy (1 July 2015). "Homeopaths to Jimmy Wales: please rewrite reality to make us not wrong". Guy Chapman's Blahg. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2021.

Userpage uncivil

Your user page comes off as uncivil and is honestly a bit too long. Although it has improved a bit since the last time I saw I do think you need fix it up a bit.CycoMa (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa: Some of those lines are a replies to Facebook groups which accuse me of being a rat, traitor of my country, and agent of the New World Order. Several Facebook users stated I did not get beaten enough to behave properly (manganello ed olio di ricino). I honestly believe that accusing someone of being an agent of the New World Order is paranoid delirium, and if it comes down to a libel case, I think the judge will agree with me (verity defense, we call that in Romania, i.e. truth is an absolute defense to libel claims). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
tgeorgescu also I do want to say this about that deletion discussion I had with you. I don’t disagree with you when it comes to religious POV pushing. POV pushers are honestly a problem, I mean I edit sex and gender topics. You have POV pushers there all the time. It’s if there is gonna be an essay regarding religious POV pushing it should be a little more welcoming.CycoMa (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: I tried to write one and I failed. I think it is time that somebody else does it. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: maybe after when I’m done with these 22 drafts I’ll write one myself. And maybe you and Karma can help me make it.CycoMa (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CycoMa: AFAIK Karma has retired. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neronian persecution

I would like to ask your opinion about the Neronian persecution. As you probably know, some scholars (Moss, 2013; Shaw, 2015) have cast doubt on the historicity of such persecution; still, most scholars consider it to have happened (Stark, 2011; Hurtado, 2016; Bauckham, 2017; Ehrman, 2018; Strauss, 2019). Ehrman, in particular, explains that the persecution did indeed take place, but was a rather isolated event, happened only in Rome and was mainly due to the need of Nero to find a scapegoat for the Great Fire on Rome; this view, in my idea, is the most reasonable. What is your opinion on the matter?--Karma1998 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Karma1998: Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: OK, thanks.--Karma1998 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usenet

You wrote on my talk page, "If you want to know why Usenet is not a proper channel for distributing child pornography, my comments are to the point. Of course, once you know the facts, you may search for sources." I didn't ask why Usenet is not a "proper channel" for distributing pornography. I don't really care. Your comments on the article talk page are irrelevant, they make no statement of changes to the article that will improve it. The article talk page is not for general commentary on the subject matter. If you have a specific suggestion pertaining to article improvement, then state it. Otherwise, you are posting your comments in the wrong place. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Anastrophe: I was trying to make something clear to other editors. It does not have to be me who finds the sources, it's a collective task. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said nothing on the article talk page about finding sources, or asking other editors to look for sources. You merely posted your opinions on why it's bad to get/post child porn on usenet. Dangling opinions aren't helpful. State what you are asking other editors to do, or state what you intend to do. Otherwise, you're just writing personal commentary. Wikipedia is not a blog. Anastrophe (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastrophe: You were too fast to revert my edits. Generally I draw the proper conclusions, but it does take time.
At WP:EDITS I see my own username, I don't see yours. So a little WP:AGF would be all right. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was going to be charitable, but now you're basically making a claim that because I have fewer edits than you, my decision to follow the rules here is misplaced. That's not how it works. I have not failed to assume good faith; I reverted your edits in good faith. I have engaged in good faith here. Implying that I'm not assuming good faith is...wait for it...not good faith. So please, just follow the rules, don't imply that your editing is more important/relevant than mine, and we can end the discussion here. Anastrophe (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastrophe: Sometimes I think slower (ruminate), and edit in several pieces. A good advice before reverting someone's edits would be to look at their profile and evaluate whether they are a trusted editor or just a random troll. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I'm not obligated to do a 'background check' on a user before reverting incompletely formed commentary from an article talk page. I appreciate - genuinely - the characteristic of thinking slower and ruminating as one forms one's thoughts. This might have been avoided if the first thing you posted was what your ultimate goal was - finding sources. I'm happy to assist in doing so. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an amusing little factoid for you. Back in the mid-1990's, when I was sysadmin at a small, regional ISP, I built and ran a USENET 'transit' server, HSNX.WCO.COM (long gone now), that was in the top 100 globally in the speed with which new articles were propagated to other usenet servers around the world. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anastrophe: Well, yes, WP:SOURCES will be much appreciated. But it is too difficult for me to find sources about this issue. Generally speaking, I am pretty good at identifying sources.
I did research this issue some years ago, see https://www.academia.edu/225981/A_Research_of_Decadence_How_Child_Pornography_Testifies_that_We_Live_in_a_Decadent_World tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Usenet are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for working to fend off the latest in a long line of Bible literalists over at Belshazzar, as well as your tireless defense of keeping this article aligned to what academics believe over the last few years. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for taking up the discussion. I feel like I've said everything I can but it doesn't seem like anything was getting through. The messages left by the IP feel less and less intelligible, so I also applaud you for keeping your cool and continuing to be reasonable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think our interaction on an earlier article that I commented on may have gotten us off on the wrong foot. I noticed that you followed my contributions to respond to other comments I recently made, and have also read earlier versions of my Userpage.

I think you should understand that while I am still religious, I have not edited my Userpage since I was a teenager, and have been away from editing Wikipedia for a very long time. When I came back to comment on a page in January this year, it was only then that I realized how cringy my teenage-written Userpage was and I since deleted it, but it seems that the old edit history that you drudged up continues to color your perception of me. I can assure you that my intentions now are unrelated to what I wrote ten or so years ago, specifically inserting my worldview into the Wiki from original research. I've learned that the Wiki is not the forum for that.

I know you don't mean any harm, but it does make me feel rather uncomfortable that you take such an interest in my childhood, or following my contribs in general. If you accept this assurance from me, I would ask that you consider removing the response you gave on the Talk:Persecution of Christians talk page, or at least moving it to my talk page, because it seems to be directed to your opinion about me as a person and not exactly relevant to the point I was making whatsoever. If you don't accept this assurance, and you believe my comments will always be pushing an evangelical agenda (no matter what I say to the contrary), then I will go ahead and remove my comments from both that article and the prophesies article, because there is no point continuing discussion if I'm forever branded that way. LutherVinci (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tgeorgescu&oldid=1048265991"