User talk:tgeorgescu

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



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.)[1] 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.

The question is not so much whether Wikipedians should be tolerant or intolerant, but: tolerant with what? And: intolerant with what?

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, child grooming, 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. The article masturbation is replete with WP:RS/AC claims precisely because I listened to critics of the article. I mean: I did not oblige their wish to adulterate the medical consensus, but I have provided rock-solid sources for the medical consensus. That had nothing to do with me being mean or obstinate, but mainstream science simply wasn't on their side (and still isn't). Since I'm not in charge of the scientific consensus, they were barking at the wrong tree. I'm not a scientist; I have nothing to add to or subtract from mainstream science. I render it for what it is. So, even assuming I was prejudiced against their POV (since it does sounds like an outlier), there was no need of doctoring the medical consensus. They felt treated like outcasts, but even if I wished, I could not offer them a place at the table of mainstream science. There are many people who think they will change mainstream science through editing Wikipedia—but that is a completely wrong approach: Wikipedia is subservient to mainstream science, mainstream science isn't subservient to Wikipedia. What those people really asked is playing fast and loose with the facts of mainstream science. We cannot do that.

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 liberal-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 me 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.[2]

— 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. I like wiki-persecuting bigots, pseudoscientists and quacks. Do you think I'm mean? The watchdog must bite.

Blaming me for the fact that Wikipedia has rules that get enforced is deeply idiotic. I did not ban your pet theology from Wikipedia. I lack the power to do so. It is simply so that pushing fringe POVs is not acceptable to this encyclopedia.

The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.

Having your POV not touted by Britannica is not a violation of human rights.

Having your POV not touted by Larousse is not a violation of human rights.

Having your POV not touted by Wikipedia is not a violation of human rights.

If your edit gets deleted because the Ivy League finds it is rubbish, it is not discrimination, and it is nothing personal.

Wikipedia is crowdsourced, while Britannica and Larousse aren't. That's the only difference. For the rest all three have the same ideals and values.

You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Why the Dutch always say what they mean – BBC REEL on YouTube
  2. ^ 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.

webauthn debian issue[edit]

re: your webauthn issue on debian[1] i believe it will be addressed by this ticket .[2] there is a patch but i'm not sure when it will be deployed Tonymetz 💬 17:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFBOMB[edit]

This is a serious warning, but one I want you to take with notice that I'm not in substantial disagreement with you. There is never an acceptable reason to drop a WP:REFBOMB of 35,049 bytes, particularly one that largely does not directly pertain to the subject at hand. However, I agree with you! I know most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, but the citation in the article at the outset did not support that conclusion. All that was necessary was a recent academic source that explicitly said something to the effect of "most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark/synoptic gospels were written anonymously". Instead, you reverted a well-meaning new editor and accused them–quite unfoundedly–of POV editing. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I was in the process of seeking a single source that supported the "most scholars" claim, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that REFBOMB is against many references (footnotes), not against many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is very wrong. Per REFBOMB: A common form of citation overkill is adding sources to an article without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic, which is absolutely pertinent considering the fact many of the sources were wholly unrelated to the subject. Unfortunately, this is a common sense thing, and I would encourage you to refrain from similar disruption going forward–especially since you're absolutely correct here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean the Gospel of Mark only: you are right. If we mean NT gospels are anonymous (as I have explicitly stated): I was right. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You never explicitly said that. The content being source exclusively dealt with the Gospel of Mark. And, even if you had, it wouldn't have made sense. Regardless, it does not justify a 35k POINTy edit including numerous off-topic refs and BITING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography discussion[edit]

How is referring to documentation on court cases, citing obscenity tests, legal definitions and court verdicts concerning the topic from: casetext.com, jolt.law.harvard.edu, cornell.edu, and justice.gov not reliable sources, original research, or not verifiable? Especially when they are websites...some of them .edus and .govs...and the particular cases specifically...explicitly...state the words porn, pornography, and/or pornography dealers? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to seek WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We havent reached disagreement, you made that decision, im asking you how. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need answers, seek WP:DR. I got tired of explaining WP:OR to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be extremely clear if I take it to wp:dr because i have no intentions of making anything up. So you're going to have to answer something...
You listed I believe 5 different things that I do not have the ability to check for obvious reasons.
Would you list them again, I know two are Wp:or and Wp:v 173.80.7.142 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's your right to take it to WP:DR. I have no wish of starting WP:DR about WP:SNOW.
It is high time that you piss off other editors than me. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You listed approximately 5 things, i only remember two. This will be my second and last time asking you: What were the other 3 wp things you listed regarding my sources. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing got deleted. You may still read that whole thread. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No usable sources have been provided, [show] and this has long passed the point of WP:NOTFORUM"
That is the only thing that is there and the [show] part is not clickable for me 173.80.7.142 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are more ways to skin a cat: click upon talk page history. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you so much for your efforts to keep Wikipedia away from being a place of religious promotion. — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tgeorgescu&oldid=1219197061"