User talk:Tgeorgescu

Archives (Index)

2016/November 2016/December 2017/January 2017/February 2017/March 2017/May 2017/June 2017/July 2017/August 2017/September 2017/October 2017/November 2017/December 2018/January 2018/February 2018/March 2018/April 2018/May 2018/June 2018/July 2018/August 2018/September 2018/October 2018/November 2018/December 2019/January 2019/February 2019/March 2019/April 2019/May 2019/June 2019/July 2019/August 2019/October 2019/November 2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/July 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September 2024/October

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.

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.

— 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

Article: Fornication

May I ask you, with all due respect, why you consider a roman catholic lecturer a greater authority on jewish law than Maimonidies, on whom jewish law is based...?

In the meantime, I took myself the liberty to undo your change. You are free to change the christian view on pre-marital sex according to your source... ZucherBundlech (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

@ZucherBundlech: Being a Roman Catholic is irrelevant: he does not kowtow to Catholic dogma, he is a modern Bible scholar.

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

Morals: Just because you are a Jew and I'm not, it does not mean that you have special editing rights about Judaism. I'm telling it nicely, and I advise you to never again claim that Gentiles have no right to study and publish WP:SCHOLARSHIP about Judaism. As implied by the quote provided at Talk:Fornication, one of Ehrman's colleagues is an Israeli Jew and he is an expert in American fundamentalist Christianity, another of his colleagues is an Israeli Jew and he is an expert in Roman Catholicism. I assume that neither of these three scholars is a Christian. There is no requirement that an expert in Christian theology should be a Christian.

Maybe you work under the assumption that you should only trust scholars of Judaism who are male and halachically Jewish. But Wikipedia is not affiliated to such arrangements. You have to adapt to working at an encyclopedia based upon mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the Wikipedia Community does not have to adapt to your own requirements.

A WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (us vs. them) is not appreciated here. Wikipedians have to collaborate upon positive statements based upon WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was too harsh, but what I meant was not to dispute his or your view on the Bible based your non Jewishness, or any other factor; you both may be experts on the subject; my problem is that Jewish Halachical lawbooks say something else.

It may very well be a legitimate understanding of the Bible; but it is not the Jewish view; definitely not the orthodox view Saying that "Traditional Orthodox Jews are opposed to premarital sex" is not true; they consider it forbidden, and they derive it from the Bible. If you want, you can remove the whole "Bible" section and just state Maimonides or the Shulchan Aruch's view (which would be a distortion); or you can divide it in parts: The Jewish Orthodox; The Conservatives; The Reform, etc.

You can start a new header titled "Modern Bible Scholarships view on what the Bible says about premarital sex and what the Jews should really believe", but it doesn't belong in Judaism's view on premarital sex. ZucherBundlech (talk) 15:18, 29 July 2024 (UTC)