User talk:Tgeorgescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is New Age? Definition of New Age / definitions © Tudor Georgescu 2002, unless quotations are used:

New Age: the ensemble of thelemic doctrines; Religion: the ensemble of thelesmic doctrines.

Thelema: behaving anarchically; expressed by Aleister Crowley in The Book of the Law as "Do what you wilt is the whole law."; Thelesma: aware choice; expressed by Hermes Trismegistus in The Emerald Tablet as discrimination.

The message of New Age: "You don't think. You're an animal. That's good. Enjoy!"; The message of religion: "You don't think. You're an animal. That's evil. Wake up!".

Apparently in the other category: Anthroposophy, Grail's Movement, Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism.

Thelema is always the thelesma of another entity. This is proven by the New Age stance of renunciation to thinking, in search of a so-called peace of soul. Since good entities are not imposive, it follows that thelema is always evil. It is the displacement of personal will through the suggestions of another will. Its purpose is the entitive annihilation, and its consequences are anarchy and anomy.

The thelemic increment is the tiny and apparently innocent quantity of added thelema. On a longer period, the general decay becomes evident.

(Above thelesma means enabling personality and thelema means taking over a personality by giving it a twisted idea that it is able to do everything, with no consequences whatsoever).

Hello Tudor Georgescu, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you realize that by submiting your writing here, you are releasing it under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows copying, redistribution and modification of your work by anyone. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more details. -- Stephen Gilbert 15:03 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I quote from reiser4-for-2.6.19.patch by Laurent Riffard: tgeorgescu

"Further licensing options are available for commercial and/or other interests directly from Hans Reiser: If you interpret the GPL as not allowing those additional licensing options, you read it wrongly, and Richard Stallman agrees with me, when carefully read you can see that those restrictions on additional terms do not apply to the owner of the copyright, and my interpretation of this shall govern for this license." tgeorgescu

I quote from : tgeorgescu

"Copyright protects expression. The Copyright Act of 1976 states that the items of expression can include literary, dramatic, and musical works; pantomimes and choreography; pictorial, graphic and sculptural works; audio-visual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. An original expression is eligible for copyright protection as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form." tgeorgescu

"Consequently, almost any original expression that is fixed in a tangible form is protected as soon as it is expressed. For example, a graphic created in Photoshop is protected as soon as the file is saved to disk. This Web page was protected as soon as I stopped typing and saved the .html file." tgeorgescu

On GFDL, I quote : tgeorgescu

"The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other functional and useful document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being considered responsible for modifications made by others." tgeorgescu

So, if somebody modifies my work so that violence is being suggested, I am not responsible for that. But, I maintain the authorship of the text I wrote, even if it is freely available for everybody to read and comment it. Naturally, I don't charge money for reading it. tgeorgescu

Btw, I don't mind that people copy and/or re-write what I write. According to my guru, one writes something down precisely because he/she wants everybody else to do whatever they please with his/her written words. E.g., the Bible has been mocked in innumerable ways, the same can be said of Shakespeare or Plato. The noble words of Socrates were raw matter for Aristofanes' scorn. And for Nietzsche's contempt. So, by writing something down, one consents that this is a pearl (if indeed a pearl) offered to the swines. So, it is understandable that esoteric groups are fond of secrecy, because they do not want their pearls to go to the swines. tgeorgescu


Could you[edit]

please move your addition to the Aleister Crowley talk page to the bottom. I can see what you wrote in the diff, but can't actually find it on the talk page. Normally, new responses on the talk page should be added at the bottom, not to some old section nobody is paying attention to anymore. IPSOS (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I will do it. Tgeorgescu 07:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research/vandalism to Rudolf Steiner page[edit]

Wikipedia guidelines exclude original research in articles, especially when it appears to be vandalism as in this recent edit to the Rudolf Steiner page. Hgilbert 15:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand it is wrong to insert my own viewpoints in Wikipedia. However, it remains a fact that Rudolf Steiner was an egoist. He never disputed this fact, on the contrary, he wrote very favorable reviews of egoist authors (as Max Stirner and Friederich Nietzsche) and he praised egoism on many occasions. He was also a supporter of amoralism, perhaps this counts as original research, but this amoralism is totally Rudolf Steiner's, it is not a label applied to him from outside. Tgeorgescu 16:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides, it is not demonstrated that I was writing that in bad faith, so perhaps it cannot count as vandalism. Tgeorgescu 16:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not vandalism if it was not done with the intention of disrupting the article, and I understand now you acted out of good will. I have struck out the suggestion that this might be so.

There are two issues here: one, the rules of Wikipedia; two, the ideas of Steiner.

  1. Wikipedia does have clear guidelines about an editor not putting in his/her own formulations, even if based upon a carefully built case and backed up with evidence; instead, we as editors should report on the conclusions drawn by authorities in the field. It's well worth reading the guidelines as to where the line is to be drawn between reporting on conclusions and drawing one's own. In particular, in the Steiner and related articles, arbitrators of an earlier dispute set down the guideline that Steiner's works should not be drawn upon in controversial areas; rather, independent authorities should be cited. This is because it is easy to come to opposing interpretations of the same passages, or find passages that seem to support even diametrically opposed conclusions about his ideas.
  2. In English, Steiner's position would be more commonly called ethical individualism than egoism, especially as he, as you point out, frequently pointed out the limitations on the ego and the importance of community (see his fundamental social law, for example). Hgilbert 00:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

By the way, only peer-reviewed, print-published, non-polemical sources should be used; see Verifiability standards to clarify this (and for exceptions). Hgilbert 00:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Can you quote a bit from Galtier's statement about the difference between Theosophy and Anthroposophy centering around their attitude toward the 18th degree of masonry? This is so far from both groups' history of the split that I wonder where he came up with this. hgilbert (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say this is interpolation. Galtier speaks about the Masonic-spiritualist convent of 1888, which discussed the problem of mono- vs. pluri-religious character of the Rosicrucian degree. Both Theosophy and Antroposophy think of themselves as being Rosicrucian movements. Theosophy is clearly presenting a mixture of religions, especially Eastern religions. The Anthroposophers split from the Theosophic Society, and the difference between their doctrines seems to be that Anthroposophers use Christian esoteric terms instead of Eastern religious concepts, and refer mainly to Christian esoteric themes and organizations, and to Christian chivalry orders. So, we may consider Theosophy as the outer expression of the pluri-religious Rosicrucian degree, while Anthroposophy is the outer expression of the mono-religious Rosicrucian degree. 09:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tgeorgescu. You have new messages at Notedgrant's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lists of diploma mills[edit]

Hello. Thank you for your work to improve the articles on diploma mills. However, I removed the "lists of U.S. diploma mills" that you added. These "lists of diploma mills" are not not necessarily lists of diploma mills -- you will notice that they do not use the word "diploma mill" to describe the listed institutions. Few entries on these lists have been legally demonstrated to be diploma mills. Rather, these are institutions known to lack either or both legal credentials and accreditation necessary to conduct higher education or issue degrees. Labeling schools as "diploma mills" without proof could be considered libel, so it must be avoided. Also, please note that some of these lists are already appropriately provided in the "External links" sections of Diploma mills in the United States and Diploma mill (an "External links" section is the appropriate place for links like these, according to WP:External links) and Wikipedia has an extensive (but incomplete) list of unaccredited institutions of higher education at List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning. Thank you again for your contributions to these articles. --Orlady (talk) 13:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of La Haye Global University for Journalism and Media[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

As I have argued below, this warning does not apply to me. In all I wrote about Romanian and Dutch universities I have presented verifiable information based upon reliable sources. If this information is unpleasant to some, this is because the very facts (reality) is unpleasant to them. I did not vent my own value judgments thereupon, but I have followed the truth and provided reliable sources for verifying this truth. I was merely stating the facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crusio (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Crusio, I have never attacked Muslims, Arabs or such university, I have only stated the obvious, namely that this university is not recognized by the Dutch state (and therefore the degrees which it grants to people are worthless, which I think I did not write in the article, but I only state it here), because of lacking accreditation by the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organization (NVAO) and because it is not recognized by the Dutch Department of Education, Culture and Science. This is true and verifiable information and I have provided sources for checking this information. By the way, the university was considered lacking significance and therefore its Wikipedia page has been deleted by moderators. I thought that since the Via Vinci University has an Wikipedia page, all other non-recognized universities from the Netherlands should receive their own Wikipedia pages. I was sincere and honest in what I wrote and I cannot change the lack of accreditation of this university, even if I wished it. I had an obligation of rendering the facts about that, I was not venting my own value judgments upon this university. Education Secretary Marja van Bijsterveldt was displeased that such organizations are free to use the name "University" and she pressed for changing the laws in order to protect the use of the names "Universiteit" and "Hogeschool". This is also verifiable information, I have provided a source for it on the Via Vinci University article. You see that I have nothing to appologize for. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Diploma mill[edit]

I think you over did it on the sources in the Romanian section. Three is probably enough. Alatari (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Hard claims need hard evidence. That's why too much sources is better than too few sources. Besides on the discussion page I was told that not everybody can read Romanian, therefore I offered sources in English, French and German. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased Editing[edit]

First, let me correct you...The Intercultural Open University Foundation is not my foundation. I am just one of many editors who worked on the article. It was a very difficult article to place on Wikipedia and without some very good editors at Wikipedia the article would of been deleted. You are the first person to come along and add a whole category to the article. All of us were aware of the 2007 Skeptic magazine article and the issue of the Dutch Ministry approval for our foundation when we first worked on the article. Since we do not have a curriculum and only offer a graduate mentoring program we have never considered asking for Dutch Ministry approval. Presently we are content with our foundation programs being registered in the Netherlands and the United States. I have done some editing of your postings without removing any references to make the article read in a fair and balanced manner (neutral). I am sure you will agree that this is fair not only to the reader of the article but also to be fair and neutral to the foundation. The 2008 article from the Dutch newspaper and the need for the religious references I found difficult to understand? Why the need for this linked reference to Jesus? Obviously on our website we have no faculty member with this name and in quoting the article you used International Open University that I corrected. Our faculty are highly credentialed doctorate holders from major European and USA universities, and do not hold P.O.Box degrees. Have you looked at our website? I consider most of your editing very biased and lacking the netural theme that Wikipedia supports.Stretch call (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't have something against the IOU. It is just that I have found some sources about it and added them to the Wikipedia article, because Wikipedia is about rendering facts stated by reliable sources. Such sources do not speak highly of the IOU, but that's not my fault. Accreditation is relevant for universities, e.g. one cannot apostille or legalize a diploma for using it in a foreign country in lack of accreditation/recognition. Therefore, such diploma cannot be recognized in that specific country. You say that this does not applies to foundations, but then why grant academic degrees? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Foundation degrees[edit]

Thank you for your reassurance that you are not acting in a bias manner. As to foundation degrees it is my thinking and understanding that a graduate degree is as valid as the research that it represents. As you have looked at IOU Foundation negative press I have found degreed individuals working at the Hague, the UN, universities in the USA, i.e. University of Vermont, UK universities, Asian universities, and numerous social activist programs including work with the Dalits in India and substainability projects, licensed therapist in the USA, Europe, and Asia. There is plenty of "good press" about IOU on the web. There is memberships and workshop presentations by faculty at the leading European E-Learning Organizations. I easily found one by Dr. Hurlong, the President, and notable scholar Dr. Yoshikawa as they presented and lead a European Union Conference in Finland at a recent European Foundation for Quality in E-Learning (EFQUEL). There is also some excellent press on adult learning sites, ning articles, Hextlearn ( part of European Distance Learning Assoication EDEN) has activity and involvement from IOU Foundation people. Also I noticed on the IOU Foundation website that they have a disclaimer section that lists affiliations that they are not associated with and I think some of the negative postings that you are finding and focusing on belong in a period when the foundation was active in India before the government stopped outside educational institutions from offering programs in that country. I have asked a Wikipedia adminstrator to help with the article and I think now it is best that we use the IOU Foundation talk page and work on the neturality of this article.Stretch call (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, all that press is nice, but it is used to hide the fact that the degrees granted by the IOU are recognized nowhere in the world. In some countries, it is legal to bear any title one wishes (recognized or not), but in other countries one may only use recognized titles. This is the case of the Netherlands, while in Texas, Oregon and Switzerland one may not use unrecognized degrees to compete for clients or for a job. So, all that good press is nothing in respect to being accredited by NVAO or by other nationally recognized accrediting agency from a foreign country. As said above, if one cannot apostille or legalize a diploma, it is worthless in another country. And the only way to legalize/apostille Dutch diplomas is by having them stamped by DUO (IB Groep). So, a diploma granted in the Netherlands is a worthless piece of paper if granted by a curriculum which is not recognized by the Dutch Department of Education, Culture and Science. The same applies for an US diploma granted by an organization which is not listed upon So granting academic degrees without desiring accreditation is like becoming a MD without ever practicing medicine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-traditional E-Learning Institutions[edit]

You appear to take a very stringent interpertation of traditional education, and in the process you make some assumptions that would leave out many non-traditional institutions such as the Intercultural Open University Foundation. Just because the foundation does not have the Dutch Ministry approval or an approval of a regional accreditation in the USA does not make these degrees worthless. If this is the case this would make the work of many dedicated educators working in distance and non-traditonal educational institutions appear to have no value whatsoever. I know that many virtual and E-Learning institutes have considerable difficulties with traditional accreditation and in many cases could not even apply for consideration. My recommendation to you is for you to look at the many small foundations and non-traditional institutions who offer graduate degrees and the impact and role that they play in E-Learning. A great source is EDEN, OBHE in the UK, EFQUEL in Belguim, and Hextlearn that is a part of EDEN. The IOU Foundation is a member in full of all these organizations. Personally I have been involved with the "University without Walls" that started in the 70's with Antioch College in the USA for over fourty years. I believe very strongly in the value and need of institutions such as the Intercultural Open University Foundation. It is my belief that the IOU Foundation that is registered in the Netherlands and in the USA as a charitable educational foundation has the legal right to offer graduate degree outside the control of any accrediting organization. I think it is also important to remember that the IOU Foundation is a non-traditional E-Learning Foundation that offere a mentoring program to its learners. There is an interesting piece of talk on the Intercultural Open University talk page that you might be interested in reading. All the editors of this article believe that this foundation needs to be evaluated in its own category of non-traditional adult based charitable distance education. My best Stretch call (talk) 03:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Spiru Haret work.[edit]

Just a thanks for staying on top of it. -- (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to GreenPark Christian Academy. Thank you. ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in the future I will be more careful about that. Not that I would have added it to the article, I have merely restored what it seemed to me a deletion without proper reason. In fact, I'm not even the first to restore such deletions inside that article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I'm flattered. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism and Gnosticism[edit]

Hi, I just restored your Bart Ehrmann ref/edit.

17:05, 8 September 2011 In ictu oculi (talk | contribs) (13,236 bytes) (Undid revision 449148589 by SudoGhost - well anyone who doesn't isn't a scholar and it's sourced.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:12, 8 September 2011 SudoGhost (talk | contribs) (12,633 bytes) (Undid revision 449148073 by Tgeorgescu (talk) Unanimously? You were able to find a source for every scholar alive? Amazing! But dubious. Please discuss on talk page first.) (undo)
(cur | prev) 15:08, 8 September 2011 Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) (13,236 bytes) (→The "lost years" of Jesus & New Age theories: scholars consider it a hoax) (undo)

What that article really needs however is an AfD. Entirely WP:fringe and WP:OR. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I restored again. If I propose AfD will you second? Or do we keep monitoring this nonsense? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
I find the deletion of the article a too radical measure. I think merging it as proposed would be a better solution. E.g. Elaine Pagels is a reputed scholar and if she says there is a link between Buddhism and Gnosticism, that would make the thesis notable enough for being included into Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree, let's go with the original proposal to merge. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Gathered 3 voices in favour, and no opposition on the target page, so will probably merge to Talk:Buddhism and Christianity next week or so. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ted Bundy[edit]

Hello, Tgeorgescu! I'm not sure what your recent edit was supposed to add to this article, so I removed it.[1] I hope you're not angry about that, but the link is dead and the wording of the quote just really doesn't warrant inclusion here. Please bring it up on the talk page if you disagree - and thanks! Doc talk 06:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


What about this as a sexual orientation? You want to support its inclusion at the Sexual orientation article? Homosexuals and zoosexuals, in the same boat. You can come in and comment on the talk page. (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Perversion: sexual practice disapproved by the speaker.

— Thomas Szasz, The Second Sin, 1973, p. 10

Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Szasz makes it clear that such claims are subjective. Personally, I think that zoophilia is a perversion, but an encyclopedia is not a blog for our own opinions, so any claim has to have a reliable source. So, the problem lies in finding reliable sources which say that, consensually seen, zoophilia is or isn't a sexual orientation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion and sexuality[edit]

Would you consider changing the subtitle on the talk page? The unregistered editor said " there is no such hebrew word, children do not have a stigma, and the source didn't say what it was purported to say." He may be incorrect, but he was commenting on the material and not you personally. The subtitle's word is also in the early text answers. Otherwise, the responses seems objective. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, the idea is that he questioned my reliability by questioning the text. If he were correct the possibilities are: I made a mistake (which I believe I didn't), I misunderstood the source (which is a pretty simple text, so that's not flattering) or I am simply spreading lies through Wikipedia. So, he accused me or writing falsities, with or without intent. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
There are always questions on inserted material. Material I have inserted has been criticized before. Sometimes the criticisms were quite accurate (I misread material; I used wrong word in paraphrasing; reference wasn't that great, etc.!) Material is always subject to criticism. Nothing to do with editor. Student7 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you made several valid comments on the Historical Jesus page. I have not edited that talk page because I do not have time to work on that article this year. But your points are generally valid and I will try to get involved sometime in 2012. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


Merry Christmas

History2007 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas, too! Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania[edit]

Flag map of Romania.svg
Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll consider joining. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for signing up for the translation project[edit]

Will contact you when articles are ready in your language. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Email enrique at He is heading that aspect of the project. CC me at jmh649 at --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
First Romanian article is here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I began translation at User:Tgeorgescu/RTT/Schizophrenia_Romanian_translation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Dear Tgeorgescu, I see your name listed on our project page as the Romanian lead integrator - nice to meet you. :) I was wondering if you had some time to look into the integration of the completed Romanian translation of Dengue fever. Please drop me an email here: ildikosantana at gmail dot com, so that I can send you the target file for integration, in case you don't have access to the TwB Workspace.
Many thanks in advance for your assistance! Ildiko Santana (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your email; file sent; please contact me if there's anything else I can do. Best regards, Ildiko Santana (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your help with the translation project! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you are invited![edit]

Please join the mailing list[edit]

Have send you an email. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 23:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magnum Semiconductor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dixons and Circuit City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor suggestion[edit]

When someone stops discussing, calling them chicken may get them upset enough to come back and waste more time. You make your own decisions of course, but if that post had been mine, I would have modified it to say briefly say "the other party seems disinterested" so the discussion will end, not heat up out of anger. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, he seemed so brave and convinced of what he said on the Romanian Wikipedia, that keeping silent on the English Wikipedia is at least strange. I mean, he has still offended the editors of the two articles by what he said on the Romanian Wikipedia and lacks the courage to repeat his offense on the English Wikipedia, where they can answer back. It is of course much easier to call people names behind their backs or when they're not listening. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, no worries, hopefully it will all end be forgotten. And thanks for translating those. History2007 (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Teotokos of Vladimir[edit]

Thanks for notifying me, but I have no freaking idea what does this extra bureaucracy mean and what shall I do. The section there says "Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Content I removed from Aleister Crowley Page[edit]

Sorry, new to editing Wikipedia. User Dara Allarah has repeatedly inserted a section into the article on Aleister Crowley that is irrelevant, highly inaccurate and contains ad hominem attacks against living persons. I noticed she had put it back after it had been removed several times and so I removed it. I've removed it again, but this time added a short description of why I removed what I did. -- (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As said on the talk page, I don't support either side. For me it seems like much ado about nothing. I won't revert your revert, since at least it now has an edit summary which gives a reason which appears plausible. I will leave the issue to be sorted out by the editors on the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo[edit]

Hi there! I invite you to participate in the request for comment on Talk:La Luz del Mundo. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! Ajaxfiore (talk) 22:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu It seems to me you do not understand the words: "what basic of Wikipedia I do not know?" You talk generalities and expect people will respect you. You say I do not know but what particular think? It is insulting the other person intelligence talking in generalities. You would also doubt if somebody like you is honest or using his position to push you. I hope I express myself clearly. -- (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) Sock-Puppeteer User:Serafin.

Discussion about quote in Pope Francis article[edit]

Dear Tgeorgescu, I saw the comment you made on the dispute resolution noticeboard page -- re the argument about whether the quote I entered from the Jerusalem Post violated BLP rules. You made two points no one has made in the discussion of that quote on the talk page for Pope Francis. Would you be willing to repeat your statements on that talk page, so other editors could see it. Thanks! NearTheZoo (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


Greetings!! You described yourself as Pandeist in the discussion on the images used for 'God' -- I too consider myself one. How rare a thing, I have discovered, to meet a fellow Pandeist. I feel this has been a fortuitous day, as if our Universe has conspired to have us meet. ;)

As you have an interest in this topic, perhaps you can translate some of the material from our own Pandeism page to its rather sparse Romanian counterpart. Sadly, our own article has recently been the recipient of an exclusionist hatchet job, which included (as part of the harsh medicine imposed) the separation of the article into Pandeism and God becomes the Universe. But the material in the later article is obviously still about Pandeism, and ought to be included in an article honestly addressing that topic. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm a pandeist like in Deus sive Natura (Spinoza). When I will have the time, I will translate it into Romanian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Indeed!! Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. And thank you. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I had wanted to update you, my friend, on the great progress which has been made to the Pandeism page since last we spoke. I have discovered a plethora of heretofore unheralded sources -- most especially Max Bernhard Weinstein's extensive discussion of Pandeism in his 1910 outline of the progression of religion -- as well as sundry sources originating in Spanish, French, and Chinese. It is quite a different article today!! DeistCosmos (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


Information icon Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Omri that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you only removed one Sentence. The reason was a very rational explanation. Will check soon. 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Information icon Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Mesha Stele without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Slight misunderstanding. It was in fact explained, and I did not Delete it. I copied and pasted it to the Talk page, for discussion. Someone then moved the talk to the Bottom of the Page. And started the cycle over. / Poetic point, It is better for this topics to be at top is it not? Otherwise your mind things tap "END" every time it checks out someones bottom. I like being more productive than staring at ends all day. ;-) 4WhatMakesSense (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru[edit]

This article must be rewritten by checking all the MISA sources. He is not haunted by any world-wide conspiracy. Since 14 June 2013, Bivolaru is considered a criminal in Romania. Can you help? Valosu (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are two sides of the coin: there are respectable human rights organizations which defended MISA, and not without due cause; there are also sexual scandals almost in every country wherein MISA set foot. My personal opinion is that sentencing Bivolaru to prison is a violation of human rights, since the man is incompetent to stand trial (later edit: and acted out of insanity); however, neither the prosecution nor the defense pointed out this. Imho, Bivolaru is a paranoid schizophrenic and MISA members are consumers of his mystical delirium. Problem solved, but there are no reliable sources I know which say this. If one person has mystical delirium is called a mental problem; if many people have the same mystical delirium, it's called making use of the freedom of religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lakata -[edit]

The section ( is removed, because still there are no real facts that support these published allegations. Otherwise it is only spreading of slander. Lakata (talk) 07:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Seems properly sourced and verifiable to me. You are not entitled to remove such content, even if you dislike it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
It's not about whether I like it or not. I think no one should add defamatory content to Wikipedia, especially if it involves living persons. Nobody has been charged with a crime or convicted. This slandering edit exists only in order to dishonestly discredit this person without solid evidence. It is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living people even with the principles fairness at all. Lakata (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have a ban on criticism, you're misreading the BLP policy. If it is published in one reliable source, it should be included in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
We are passing one another. I very much appreciate other sensible Wikipedia´s editors who temporarily blocked the controversial content and its author because of the suspected sources. Lakata (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Tendentious editing at The Exodus. Thank you. —Guy Macon (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman[edit]

Sorry, I'm not too familiar with wikipedia editing. The reason why I removed that Bart D. Ehrman's religion was agnosticism is because agnosticism is not a religion. Bart D. Ehrman is an agnostic, I just think that it is misleading to label agnosticism as a religion because it is not one. Maybe instead of putting Religion: Agnostic we could change it to Religious Views: Agnostic. Just so that we can use the proper term in the correct context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrales2197 (talkcontribs) 04:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, you are right that agnosticism is not a religion, but it would require changing the template. Anyway, "Religion: Agnostic" could be used as a shorthand notation to mean what you said. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Kierkegaard and Buddhism[edit]

(I hope this is what you meant, it seems absurd to create a section just to correspond conversationally). I took the liberty to edit the end of that article because I have a degree in religious studies--although, having said that, I don't see how anything I wrote there was controversial enough to need citation. If you are subtle enough to draw parallels between Kierkegaard and meditation practices, surely you have some basic knowledge of religion in general...right? Please point out something I could cite and I'll happily find something for you! All attachment is suffering, according to the first two Noble Truths of Buddhism.<ref>{{cite web|url=}}</ref> By continually speaking of God, Kierkegaard compels the reader to distance himself from a detached perspective. Whether you agree with either side, his or the Buddha's, it's not controversial. My correction was to help inform the reader while the connection made between Kierkegaard and Buddhism is at best esoteric and in my view hypothetical, tenuous. --Theseanze (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NOR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, I fail to understand what is original about my additions except that they are a clear summary. Please point to what sounds "original" to you if you can. If it is, maybe I'll have to capitalize on it, but the simple point is that Buddhism has always been intrinsically opposed to attachment, and at least was originally atheistic. Zen is atheistic. Kierkegaard points all of his work toward what he at least calls God, and places attachment to that idea above all social hopes. The point seemed to make itself. That's all I have to say. --Theseanze (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Original research contains statements which are not based upon reliable sources and are therefore unverifiable. Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to do original research inside Wikipedia articles. They have always to render what reliable sources say, period. It isn't clear what source you have summarized and which pages of that source you have summarized, you are not entitled to summarize Buddhism or Zen, that is original research unless you find a reliable source for your assertions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding historians/scholars view on supernatural[edit]

Tgeorgescu, Thank you for the thoughtful response regarding the edits to the Book of Daniel page. I think, however, you missed my intended editing point. Historians/scholars who are argue against the accuracy of Daniel largely due to the seemingly accurate (and supposed supernatural) prophecy are using circular reasoning. That is, just while historians cannot assume that it is a supernatural document in their research (of course I agree with this), they also should not base arguments in their research on the assumption that something is not a supernatural document in order to prove it is not a supernatural document (or in this case to prove that Daniel is written well after the 6th century BCE). Additionally, even if a scholar has supernatural beliefs, arguments that are not based on this assumption should not be ignored just because of this belief. Of course, this being said, I understand that chapters 2b and 7-12 in Daniel are incredibly accurate prior to about 167 BCE, while the text is less clear afterward (regarding accuracy). This argument, in my personal opinion is the only convincing argument against it being an older text, with most other arguments going the other way. While I concede that the mainstream scholarly view on Daniel is that it was written during the early Maccabean period, it is insincere and biased to say that the issue was settled a over a century ago (as claimed by one author JJ Collins) during a time of "Enlightenment" where we know now was anything but enlightenment but rather an overconfidence in knowledge that was far from complete (the arguments then were very ill-informed compared to now). Indeed, the sheer volume of work continuing to be published on both sides (along with the arguments against the later writing given on the Wiki page, some of which are very convincing) indicates to me that the issue is not settled (even if the mainstream view is for later authorship). The use of the word "consensus" is a gross exaggeration in this case, at least as the term is normally applied regarding unanimity. Additionally, I would note that The Book of Daniel is not primarily a historic text but a religious text. Of course, a major component of the page should be the historicity and date of authorship of the book, but it should be recognized that the supernatual component can NEVER be supported by historians for the reason you stated: they assume no supernatural element when they conduct their research. Thus, a Wiki on Daniel should probably recognize this upfront rather than take an almost purely historical approach. Finally, I would like to argue against the allusion in the Wiki that evangelicals (really an inaccurate term as used in this context, but I will go with it) cannot be scholars (which would be the only way that even close to a consensus would be reached here). Of course, it is impossible to know anyone's intentions when they are not stated, but certainly many mainstream scholar's views are bent against supernatural elements (just as many evangelicals may be bent for it). Thus, it is unfair to throw out evangelicals from the "scholar" equation who make valid historical and logical arguments for an earlier writing of Daniel (or at least parts of it). For these reasons, I have reedited, but going somewhere in between what is given and what was in my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwbernha (talkcontribs) 04:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus isn't unanimity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm greengrounds. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Historicity of Jesus without explaining why. You wanted to undo an edit I made, but in the process, you undid several of my edits In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

One of your reverted extra edits has a quite long tradition of being unwelcome in the article. I saw it appear many times and many times it got reverted, according to WP:CONSENSUS. If you wanted to misquote Ehrman, you have perfectly succeeded in doing it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Who is misquoting or misrepresenting Ehrman? It was his opinion that jesus was clouded in myth, not simply that the biblical jesus existed, as you would have it. Either way, I have re-introduced that part, and the part that you are referring to that "must" say "Virtually all scholars" is left intact. On a side note, please try to put a little more effort into reverting certain things instead of undoing several edits. If you have issue with a specific edit, please discuss it rather than doing a mass revert. Thanks.Greengrounds (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
To me this sounds somewhat funny, since Ehrman taught a course on the historical Jesus (see The Great Courses). Of course he recognizes that some facts about Jesus were embellished, however, he believes that there are certain historical facts which can be objectively known about Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Relationship of science and religion[edit]

Hey Tgeorgescu,

Thanks for recovering the reliable sources and data on the Relationship between science and religion page. I have had to be a guardian for about a year and a half now for that page since many don't like what the actual research says. They tend to be editors with a conflict thesis mentality as opposed to an empirical or research minded. They use WP:IDONTLIKEIT as their core reasoning usually. But of course that is not enough to delete or add certain content.--Ramos1990 (talk) 16:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Verbal Censure for Intolerant Language, Your original post is included.[edit]

For a Bible thumper it may be very difficult to understand that the Bible is not wholly and objectively true. But as long as he keeps his faith in the infallibility of the Bible completely separate from his Wikipedia activities, he could be a good editor. Some years ago I did not know that one has to use reliable sources in order to edit Wikipedia, but when asked to consider it, I understood this is required from everybody and I complied with this request. For me, the decision was between complying and continuing to edit and quitting in protest; I was not willing to create problems through my edits. This does not imply that I lost faith in the truth of my contributions, but I have understood that they are required to be encyclopedically verifiable. And verifiable means having reliable sources.
Now, I did not say that theology isn't allowed on Wikipedia, what I said is that theology does not trump history and that history does not trump theology (that's the gist of WP:RNPOV: theology and history are distinct and compartmentalized, even when in dialog with each other). If he could find some theological source saying the Gospel of Mattew was written in Aramaic, he could affirm something like "Evangelicals believe as a matter of true faith that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic, while Catholics and Eastern Orthodox don't believe it that way." But I am afraid that today such view is fringe even among the Evangelicals, while in Judaism it is a non-issue. That's why he could not find sources: there is scarcely any scholar worth his salt which would put that in a book or article, i.e. in other ways than opinion hold in the past but now abandoned by scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Bible Thumper That shows your prejudice and intolerance of a persons belief. Your behavior is not tolerated. I am giving you a verbal censure here and on your talk page. You definitely know better but apparently could not resist the slighting of another editor for his religious beliefs. (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

First, I was not attacking the editor through using "Bible thumper", but explaining his behavior to other editors, namely why it is so hard for him to play by the rules. Is true that according to List of religious slurs I used it critically and disapprovingly, since pushing religious POVs is not allowed on Wikipedia. Call it Bible thumping or religious POV pushing, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. As long as he understands that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for his religious persuasion, it does not matter how we call it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of Matthew[edit]

Rather than continue to hijack the thread, I thought I'd just post this on your page. I respect your polite and thoughtful responses and wanted to reply with my viewpoint.

I still reject the statement that "Wikipedia" only supports scholarship from non-religeous institutions. This is absolutely not true and degrades the scholarship that is produced at religous institutions. Starting from the fall of the Roman empire up to maybe 400 years ago, the "ONLY" scholarship produced in the Western World was from religeous institutions. Are we now to reject the tens of thousands of works produced during this time simply because it was not birthed in a secular institution and "certainly" all these monks and scientists who lived at that monastary or attended these schools couldn't possibly have turned out any truly objective property? BTW, Newton immediately spings to mind as he attended Trinity University. Surely not. So why are we doing it now - because you can't be a Christian and be a knowlegeable scientist or engineer or philosopher?!?! Note I'm not talking about accepting or not accepting a mainstream view or reflecting that view on Wikipedia - so please don't misread my comments. It also has nothing to do with pandering because this can be taken way too far. Heck - I've been a part of mult Talk discussions about the validity of there being an actual historical Jesus (minus the divinity) and the argument usually goes "we are pandering to Christians when we say that Jesus was real". So even in an area where scholarship is in majority agreement, the desire is to strip all Christian viewpoints out of Wikipedia pages is alive and real. I realize that I'm taking it a little far afield here and this is obviously a person hot button, but the rejection of a source simply because it comes from a historically religeous school, is tantamount to intellectual censorship and ideological bigotry. Note that I'm not saying you are either censoring the page or a Christian basher.

Please take it in the spirit that its given - I'm not saying you or your viewpoint is bigoted or you are trying to censor anything. Just wanted to continue the conversation in a little more one-on-one forum so I could further flesh out where you are coming from and - hopefully - help me to become a little less of a reactionist and see an anti-Christian pogrom in every discussion. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Well, I did not say that scholarship from religious faculties should be discarded, I said that research from fundamentalist faculties isn't generally mainstream. E.g. Michael D. Coogan taught at a Catholic institution, but he is highly respected among secular historians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
If you said " theological matters", I'd agree with you. However like I said, I've seen way too often the exclusion or the deletion of text and/or a source simply because it came from a Christian university EVEN IF it agreed with the mainstream. Comments like "This guys scholarship was tainted by his beliefs" are regularly thrown out on many pages where non-Christians view Christians as undercutting their scholarship SIMPLY BECAUSE they do their research at a non-secular location. If - for instance - someone at Berkeley came out with research that undercuts a portion of Evolution, there would simply be a debate on the principles of the scholarship, vocal or otherwise, and the matter would be decided on the basis of the information. And I've read many papers that could call into question deep time if the author followed the logical conlusion of his scholarship (although obviously these authors never make that statement because that would be career suicide). If this same paper came from say the Institute of Creation Research, an equally degreed/qualified researcher with an equally peer-reviewed thesis is rejected out of hand because "this guy's scholarship was tainted by his beliefs". This isn't chicken little - its fact. So that's where I'm coming from. Thanks again - appreciate the discussion. Ckruschke (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
Speaking of evolution denialism, it is pseudoscience and this is consensually agreed by biologists regardless of their religious persuasion. None but the most extreme fundamentalists challenge evolution and they are rightly regarded as being outside of the scientific community. A piece available at [3] makes the point "So when the Christian Right tries to tell you that evolutionists instinctively circle the wagons whenever anyone dares question the Darwinian status quo, you should ask yourself why Wright and Kimura got through, but Behe not. The answer is, I think, straightforward: Wright and Kimura knew what they were talking about." Evolution is the paradigm of doing biology, biology isn't in a crisis period, therefore those who don't use the paradigm don't count as biologists. Adversaries of evolution may only hope that anomalies will accumulate until biology enters a crisis, but it is improbable that this will actually happen any time soon.

The Bible is the voice of God, not the voice of scientists. If we want the voice of scientists, we ask the scientists. Most of them do advocate the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution as the most visible means of how the world came to be. Whether or not this was God's doing is up to the reader to decide. If the scientists are mistaken, this has to be shown to them on their own grounds, which anti-evolution folks are not really doing, because they are not reading up on the same literature, they are not using the same standards and experiments, and they are not speaking in the same circles nor getting published in the same journals. If it does not walk like a duck, does not talk like a duck, and avoids ducks like the plague, there is little reason to assume its a duck. Or scientist, in this case. I'm not saying the anti-evolution folks are wrong, I'm just saying that they are not mainstream scientists. This is why they're not consulted for the voice of scientists. Now, they can be consulted for what they think if their views are notable.

Of course, in matters of the history of Christianity things are not that polarized, there are many theologians who do historical research, but it may be said that people who took a formal oath that the Bible is inerrant and infallible are suspect of being unable to approach the Bible with objectivity in mind. When history gets turned into apologetics, it is rightly regarded with skepticism. In the end, theology does not require historical evidence for making theological claims and history-as-apologetics is where biblical literalism was cornered after the Enlightenment, as Finkelstein and Silberman explain at the end of The Bible Unearthed. This book, written from an Evangelical perspective, makes it clear what is wrong with the literalistic interpretation of the Bible and why it pushes some people towards apostasy (e.g. me, if I haven't acquired a fundamentalist, literalistic interpretation of the Bible, I would still be a Christian). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg I'm sorry we've found ourselves on opposite sides of the issues, sometimes strongly so. I hope to continue our work with mutual respect in 2014. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A Son of God[edit]

Hello! I noticed you wrote that you think The Bible says you are a son of God and I want to tell you that you are both right and wrong. First you must understand that in The Bible there are atleast two distinct kinds of sonship- by flesh and by spirit. Through Scripture we understand that the first man- Adam was created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:26-27) and was called a son of God (Luke 3:38). He was not God (Isaiah 45:5-6) but was made in "His own image". After he disobeyed God, sin entered in the world and death through sin (Romans 5:12). God told Adam "cursed is the ground because of you" (Genesis 3:17-19) and I think this is why there is so much evil in the world- because of sin. In the beginning it was not so, because God said "it was very good" (Genesis 1:31). The word "son" in jewish (בּן- ben), is often used to indicate a descendant (for a study go to: Jesus Christ is a descendant of Adam, according to the flesh (Luke 3:23-38) and so are we, but unlike us, He is also The Only Begotten Son of God. This is because He has never sinned and therefore His Spirit is alive, although He did come "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Romans 8:3). He is different from you and me because He has never sinned but we have sinned and you (if your are not saved) are "spiritually dead" (Ephesians 2:5). Your spirit is dead (Romans 8:10-11) and you are condemned to be thrown in the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11-15). This is why humanity needs a Saviour, because all have sinned (Romans 3:23) and it is impossible for anyone to save himself, by good deeds or otherwise (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is by grace only, by faith in Jesus Christ The Lord ("For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"- Romans 6:23). By Him we are made spiritually alive (Ephesians 2:6-7). This is roughly summarized in Romans 5:12-21. So you are a son of God by that you are created in His Image, but you are spiritually dead and unless this changes you will "die like men, and fall like one of the princes" (Psalm 82:6-8). A spiritually dead person cannot be a son of God spiritually and when the body dies the spirit goes to hell (Luke 12:4-5). Jesus Christ says you are of the devil, because you want to carry out his lusts (John 8:34-47) and the apostle Paul says that you are a "child of disobedience" (Ephesians 2:1-3). By Jesus Christ we have the adoption as sons, according to the purpose of Gods' will (Ephesians 1:6-8, Galatians 4:1-7, Romans 8:12-17) and eternal life and it is all a free gift for you, because God loves you and wants to save you. You are free to accept it or to reject it. So you cannot be a son of God unless you are born again (John 3:1-7) which God does with you when you believe on Him (1 Peter 1:23 ).

P.S: About my edit on the 70 weeks prophecy in The Book of Daniel- it was an alternative explanation that is well supported among scholars, aswell as yours. Why shouldn't it be posted on the page so people can choose what to believe?

Best regards, Hristian — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

My point was: if Jesus could prove with that quote from the Psalms that he was divine, it works for everybody, not just for Jesus. Since he was to other Jews just a preacher (i.e. an ordinary man) and if that quote shows that an ordinary man is divine, then every man is divine. Of course, I saw a BBC documentary wherein Francesca Stavrakopoulou was making the argument that that Psalm wasn't about men being divine, but that the Jewish god Yahweh was talking to other gods, battling other gods and killing them like people kill each other. The author of the Gospel of John simply picked a verse out of the context and turned it into an argument for showing that a man was divine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Jesus Christ didn't rely on that quote alone, but He continued, saying: "Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10:36-38, KJV). He wanted the people to believe Him because of His works if they could not otherwise (also in John 5:36). Jesus Christ also said: "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." (Luke 6:43-45, ESV). As only God is good (Mark 10:17-18), therefore His Son could only come from Him and be Him (John 1:1-18). And only through Him can we become sons of God by being born of God, as explained in John 1:12-13. Our righteousness is like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6) and we cannot become righteous by righteous deeds or forgiven on our own so we need God to make us righteous and we need His atoning sacrifice to be forgiven and cleansed of our iniquity (Romans 6:1-13).
I haven't watched that documentary to comment on it but think that verse is speaking to us as Gods' creations (Isaiah 64:8), made in His Divine Image and not about other gods as we see no evidence of them in The Bible. Idols are figuratively called gods some places in The Bible but behind them there are only demons, nothing good. There are no gods besides God (Isaiah 43:5-13, Galatians 4:4-8) who is Alpha and Omega, The Beginning and The End, The First and The Last (Revelation 22:12-15).
And Happy New Year! :)
My God does not do revelations, I do not believe in revealed religion, therefore I don't consider that the Bible would be theologically true. In order to understand the mandatory policy WP:RNPOV you may want to read Reading the Bible Intelligently by Philip R. Davies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We can start the topic by conceding that, just as no modern expert on Plato is expected to be a Platonist (even of the Middle or Neo- sort), no Bible expert should be expected to accept the ideas it puts forth, far less believe in its god(s) or its divine origin.

— Philip R. Davies, Reading the Bible Intelligently
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not a bible expert by far and although I have red apologetics material my faith hangs mostly on the miracles God has done in my life and in the lives of people I know and know of. I study medicine and I am a very skeptical person; I try to distinguish when something is a miracle and when it's not (although God has established everything and works through the natural and the supernatural). I trust I can safely say my faith stands on firm evidence reviewed many times over by me.
So what do you believe in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In Spinoza's God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman's Lecture on You-Tube[edit]

Tgeorgescu, I wanted you to see this You-Tube video. Ehrman's lecture answers effectively my point that the original Gospel of Matthew may have been written in a Hebrew/Aramaic language, which is no longer extant, but having no more than the testimonies of the Church Fathers of an initial Aramaic or Hebrew text, and where the missing Aramaic or Hebrew copies ostensibly differed from the copies of copies of the Greek texts bequeathed to us and which were made from some ancient or proto text (in whatever language it was written in). Enjoy! Davidbena (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

At which precise time (hour, minute) of the video says Ehrman something like that? Please, no speculations about what Ehrman would answer if asked this question. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It is with pleasure that I answer you. After Dr. Ehrman mentions John Mill's momentous work in 30:54 thru 32:25, namely, the Novum Testamentum Graece wherein can be found the citations of the Church Fathers taken from an earlier source (the implication here being to the Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew), Dr. Ehrman then proceeds in 32:59 thru 34:18 to establish the fact that our current records of Greek NT texts were only "produced from manuscripts in the mid-fourth century" CE, asserting that "the early transmission of the text was NOT carefully controlled." Any scholar who carefully looks at such statements with a critical demeanor and with a little acumen cannot help but deduce from them that it is highly likely that the current Greek texts (with all their inconsistencies) were derived from a Hebrew/Aramaic source which is now lost. Let me express my apologies to you, sir, for in my previous message to you, I meant to say that all this is implied by Dr. Ehrman's words, rather than stated explicitly - although in the same lecture (26:39-42) he says about the surviving copies of the N.T. that they were originally written in Greek. Obviously here, he had in mind the Greek canonical texts of the N.T. as a whole, based on the fact that there is no surviving record of the Hebrew or Aramaic. Davidbena (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That's unsubstantiated speculation. I don't deny that it is a theoretically conceivable scenario, but it is a long way from having any evidence behind it. You have jumped from the merely possible to having objective factuality. Using the same argument one could try to show that the Matthei Authenticum was written in Sanskrit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, I guess it would be mere "speculation" had it not been for the testimony of Papias via Eusebius which corroborates all that we've adduced: "Matthew collected the oracles (ta logia) in the Hebrew language, and each translated them as best he could." - Papias (quoted by Eusebius, H.E. 3.39.16); or the testimony of Irenaeus: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel of the Hebrews in their own language, etc.," - Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.1.1; or the countless other ancient testimonies by Jerome (On Illustrious Men and Commentary on Matthew and Against Pelagius) and by Origen and by Epiphanius (Panarion). Davidbena (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Davidbena, do you really believe that Ehrman thinks that the canonical Gospel of Matthew was originally written in something other than Greek? Let me quote Ehrman's most recent statement on this matter from his website, Christianity in Antiquity: "there is in fact nothing to indicate that when Papias is referring to Matthew, he is referring to the Gospel that we today call Matthew. In fact, everything that he says about *his* Gospel of Matthew contradicts what we know about (our) Matthew. Our Matthew is not a collection of Jesus’ sayings, but of his deeds and experiences as well; it was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek; and it was not written independently of Mark (as Papias supposes in a later comment), but was based on our Gospel of Mark." [4] (my bolding). --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 02:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Ehrman expressed his personal view here, while other scholars (more notably, Standford Rives) disagrees with his view on Papias. Granted, we cannot expect every man to be perfect in all his suppositions at all times. We are all mortal and we all have our flaws.Davidbena (talk) 02:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If I might make one more observation: Dr. Erhman is a Greek scholar, who understands the rudiments of the Greek language. I have lived in Israel more than thirty years and speak fluent Hebrew, as well as have a workable knowledge of Aramaic. By profession, I am a translator (from Hebrew into English). Anyone reading the Greek text of Matthew and who knows Hebrew cannot help but be taken aback by what appears to be TRANSLATION ERRORS (from Aramaic into Greek), such as the word "ring" (Aramaic: קדשא), misunderstood by the Greek translator as meaning "sacred" - as in, "do not give to dogs what is sacred," (Matt. 7:6), or the words "Simon the zealot" (Aramaic: שמעון קניי), misunderstood by the Greek translator as meaning "Simon the Canaanite." See: Matt. 10:4 - cf. Luke 6:15. By the way, in the 1st century CE, there were no longer any Canaanites living in the land of Israel. Davidbena (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The view that the Gospel of Matthew is an anonymous writing written in Greek (i.e. not translated from Hebrew/Aramaic) is the majority view. As far as your hypothesis can be checked, it has been proven wrong, and as far as it is relegated to what cannot be checked, it is unsubstantiated speculation. Your argument is not specific enough. For all we know, the book meant by Papias could have been a source for the Gospel of Mark or for the Gospel of Luke, instead of the Gospel of Matthew. There could have been Hebrew/Aramaic sources for each of these gospels, but even if this is considered proven, it does not follow that the book meant by Papias had anything to do with any of the New Testament gospels. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Is that so? Let me show you how the view that the Gospel of Matthew was an anonymous writing written in Greek is a view that defies logic. Let's say that it was written originally in Greek, and that copyists made copies of copies, and so forth, down to our present age. If that were indeed the case, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for a copyist to write Canaanite (Greek: Kananaios) for a word whose master copy had written there in the original Greek, Ζηλωτής (= Zealot). The change is too radical. Rather, the original was a text written in the Hebrew (Chaldaic) script, which led to this confusion.Davidbena (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a difference between Ehrman writing popularized science and Ehrman writing original research for the six people in the world who care: in his popularized science books he presents viewpoints for which there is broad agreement among scholars. The consensus is that "of Matthew", "of Mark", "of Luke, "of John" are baseless ascriptions. So it is equally (if not more) probable that, if Papias was correct, the Hebrew Matthew was a source for the Gospel of Mark with it having been a source for the Gospel of Matthew. Ehrman's view that Papias was wrong as far as he can be checked is shared by many scholars, and they also include those who trust Papias for his Hebrew Matthew claim (I know this sounds somewhat funny, but you get the idea). Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The gist of Dr. Erhman's message in the above video, repeated time after time again, is that "the original New Testament MSS do not exist." (10:18-23; 28:33-53, 35:06-ff.) This is crucial in understanding the current texts of our N.T. Gospels, and how they may have developed - either by way of translations (with scribal errors or omissions), or later recensions and/or interpolations, etc. etc. Ehrman's view on Papias is well-known, but his view can do little to cancel the understanding of great men like Jerome who wrote: "Matthew, also called Levi, an apostle after having been a publican, was the first to compose a gospel of Christ in Judea in Hebrew letters and words for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed. But who afterwards translated it into Greek is not sufficiently certain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilius the martyr so diligently collected." - Jerome (On Illustrious Men). These words, my friend, cannot be slighted by any scholar who is worth his salt. The secondary sources which support this view, no doubt, have taken this statement into consideration – albeit, the opinion is disputed by scholars. Although Aramaic is no longer a spoken language in Israel, it is still a literary language, read daily by Jews. Any scholar who knows Aramaic and who studies the Greek N.T. can tell you that, in the Greek evangelion (Gospel) of Matthew, there are telltale signs of a translation, such as when he translates verbatim and quite innocently Aramaic idioms. Idioms are never meant to be translated verbatim! The Greek writer also often gives a free rendering, or loose translation (paraphrase), of the vorlage (parent text) which he used to make his translation, just as we can see by Jesus’s quote of Hillel the elder in Matt. 7:12, and where we can compare his words with Hillel’s original words copied down in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 31a), and who actually said: “Whatsoever is hated by thee, refrain from doing the like of which to thy neighbour. This is the entire law.” (Aramaic: דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד. זו היא כל התורה כולה). While Tobit (4:16) who was earlier than Hillel repeats a similar theme, it is clear that Jesus was quoting from his older contemporary, Hillel, by virtue of his concluding with his exact same words.Davidbena (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The argument is fine, but you won't win me with it; and I won't win you with mine either (I can't add anything than what the scholars say). But that's all irrelevant to Wikipedia, which needs reliable sources. Standford Rives may well affirm the view, but do you really think that he counts as a reliable source? He has no publications except self-published works (Amazon CreateSpace/BookSurge), no reviews in the academic journals, and no higher qualifications or positions held at any accredited institution. Take a look at Bart Ehrman for characteristics that establish one as a reliable source: He has well-reviewed publications in everything from Eerdmans to Oxford University Press, he received his PhD from Princeton, and holds a prestigious, endowed professorship at a reputable university on the basis of his textual criticism of the New Testament and early Christian historical research. It's like night and day comparing the two. --Atethnekos (DiscussionContributions) 03:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Atethnekos, I suppose that if I were to give this subject serious thought I could find more reliable sources. I think that User:Ret.Prof can produce the reliable sources which are equally as credible as Dr. Bart D. Ehrman. The truth is, I have been very busy with my own work to seriously look into this matter from an academic perspective. Davidbena (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
With your permission, I wish to paste a quote taken from Rives' book, "Original Gospel of Matthew," 2012, vol. 2. There, he writes concerning the Marcan Priority Claim: "Scholars today generally believe the Greek Mark came before the Greek Matthew. I will concede the point despite it being conjectural. However, these scholars do not factor into their thinking the importance that our Greek Matthew unquestionably derived from a Hebrew Matthew, and the Hebrew Matthew preceded the Greek Mark, as all early history records. In other words, the Hebrew Matthew is what predates both the Greek Mark and Greek Matthew. But the consensus now is that Mark came before Matthew—yet scholars mean the Greek Matthew came after the Greek Mark. They do not take into serious account the fact there was a Hebrew Matthew before both of them. I call this error the Marcan priority claim." For more on this subject, see: Be well, gentlemen. Davidbena (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing more Matthean about the Gospel of Matthew than about the Gospel of Mark or the Gospel of Luke. You not only have to show that Papias was right, but also that the attribution "of Matthew" is correct. These are two very different tasks, since by all appearances Papias meant a quite different book than the Gospel of Matthew. So how do you know that the Gospel of Matthew employed the Hebrew Matthew as a source? Why insist upon the Gospel of Matthew and not upon the Gospel of Luke or upon some lost gospel? Semitisms won't do, since they are known to every scholar who affirms that the Gospel of Matthew was incorrectly attributed to Matthew. Semitisms aren't new evidence and they failed to convince the scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I am at a loss as to what you mean by saying, "by all appearances Papias meant a quite different book than the Gospel of Matthew." Can you please elaborate? As for me, I have narrowed my scope down to Matthew's Gospel, and not to Luke's or Mark's or John's. Eusebius' understanding of Papias is quite clear, and we have his words along with the words of the other Church Fathers as primary sources. They all speak clearly about a proto-Hebrew/Aramaic Gospel which slightly differed in wording from the Greek MSS of Matthew's Gospel, and which did NOT contain the genealogies which now appear in the Greek texts. The differences in genealogy between Matthew and Luke suggest that they are both later interpolations, added in order to counter a widespread claim at that time that Jesus may have been of illegitimate birth. As far as Matthew's Gospel goes, it is not simply a matter of looking at "Semitisms," but rather of comparing the Synoptic Gospels with the so-called Gospel of Matthew and taking notice of variant readings, and then applying to them Lectio difficilior to understand what was originally there. This critical analysis also points clearly to a proto-Aramaic/Hebrew Gospel from which they procured our current Greek copy. It is reasonable to say that the conflated testimonies of Jerome, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius and Epiphanius, who have all said that Matthew's Gospel was first penned in Aramaic and written with Hebrew characters, was indeed the same Gospel whom they said had the appellation "According to the Hebrews," and from which translations were later made (according to Papias' testimony). In my view, modern text critics are in need of re-evaluating how we look at the extant Greek MSS of Matthew's Gospel. I will explain what I mean by this in a later post, and how simple explanations can sometimes revert the way scholars currently think. Davidbena (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Just make sure you understand that Wikipedia has a strong policy against original reseach. Wikipedia does not settle the matter by itself, instead it trusts scholars who live by publish or perish. All your original research arguments will be discarded, since they are irrelevant to Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOT#FORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, I am not publishing original research on any Wikipedia article, but have only made these comments in a Talk Page in which you have also made private statements. I will, however, seek to show through published works where my view is also supported by scholarship, id est, the academic community, before posting here my remarks. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hebrew Gospel of Matthew". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:Sunray (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Gospel of Matthew mediation comments[edit]

Just a quick note. I know I didn't answer your comments about eastern bias and related matters. That's because that wasn't relevant to the point I was making, part of which is that the goal for a Wikipedia article is one thing, and the process (and process input) by which it is achieved is another thing.

I'd be glad to discuss eastern and western scholastic traditions and methods sometime later if you'd like, but at the moment I have real life stuff I've got to deal with more. Ping me in a while if you like. Watch my user page for Wikibreak announcements. I may end up being away for a while. Cheers. Evensteven (talk) 22:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

University assignment, Internet addiction disorder[edit]

Hello, I have gone back to my outlined source and have found that you are correct. My deepest apologies! I am still learning, but appreciate the assistance. I will remove the poorly back information. Just to add, I have read your talk page. Absolutely fascinating, a really good read. Would you have any suggestions as to what I could add or edit to the internet addition disorder page? I would really appreciate it!

Thank You --Amosjfrancis (talk) 10:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could look for statements representing scientific consensus or the lack of it. Wikipedia does not like very much primary sources, especially when there are available secondary sources which show how the matter is seen by most (authoritative) professionals (MDs and psychologists in this case). DSM-5 is one example, there could be more. I guess that ICD-10 is a bit too old to tackle this problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Pornography addiction wiki contain false statement[edit]

I removed the following because it is false. Many studies have found deltafosb increases sexual behavior and consumption, and that blocking it decrease sexual activity. Citation 3 contains a few paragraphs about deltafosb, yet in now way supports this claim. There are no studies that support this claim.

A later paper demonstrated that ∆FosB actually has never been tied to sex, and the animal model necessary to test it does not exist.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talkcontribs) 02:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This Google search shows that Ley, Prause and Finn strongly oppose the claim that ∆FosB applies to porn. If you know peer-reviewed studies which claim that ∆FosB applies to porn, please cite them below, or, even better, add them to the discussed article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
If you cannot cite any peer-reviewed study to that effect, Wikipedia will be compelled to default to “At first sight this is a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any,” said Professor Steve Jones at [5]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Gaborlewis (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)gaborlewis

Please re-read the statement I am disputing. It says that deltafosb is not tied to sex. The disputed statement says nothing about porn. Although it's clear that sexual stimulation via porn or via sex would involve activation of the nucleus accumbens, where deltafosb accumulates during sex activity in rodent. Your Google search is not a citation, and proves nothing. Ley, Prause and Finn did not cite any study in their review to support their claim that deltafosb is not involved with sex. Because there are none. All evidence to date support deltafos as the translation factor involved with sexual reward. Below are a few of the many citations that refute the sentence under question, and fully support that delatfosb is indeed involved in sexual reward and sensitization of the nucleus accumbens towards sexual reward.

Delta JunD overexpression in the nucleus accumbens prevents sexual reward in female Syrian hamsters (2013)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DeltaFosB Overexpression In The Nucleus Accumbens Enhances Sexual Reward In Female Syrian Hamsters (2009)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DeltaFosB in The Nucleus Accumbens is Critical For Reinforcing Effects of Sexual Reward. (2010)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

DeltaFosB: A Molecular Switch for Reward (2013)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Natural and Drug Rewards Act on Common Neural Plasticity Mechanisms with ΔFosB as a Key Mediator (2013)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Natural reward experience alters AMPA and NMDA receptor distribution and function in the nucleus accumbens (2012)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Neuroplasticity in the Mesolimbic System Induced by Natural Reward and Subsequent Reward Abstinence. (2010)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Influence of ΔFosB in the Nucleus Accumbens on Natural Reward Related Behavior (2008)

Natural reward, not necessarily addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Transcriptional mechanisms of addiction: role of ΔFosB (2008) Gaborlewis (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis

Abstract says nothing about sex or sexual.
In general, the sources you have cited do not prove the existence of sex and/or porn addiction, they only say that sex is naturally rewarding. Therefore it is a misuse of these sources to claim anything about sex being an addiction. They do not support such conclusion, therefore the claim is WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
We may reasonably assume that the DSM-5 team knew of such papers and about the Delta FosB debate, but their clear verdict is:

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fifth ed.). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing. p. 481. ISBN 978-0-89042-555-8. Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders. 

Therefore, the medical consensus in 2013 was that there was no evidence of a sex addiction. According to WP:BALL we cannot know the medical consensus from 2063, but we know the scientific consensus from 2013. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaborlewis (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)For the third time - this is the sentence under question. A later paper demonstrated that ∆FosB actually has never been tied to sex, and the animal model necessary to test it does not exist.

The sentence is not about the DSM or porn addiction or sex addiction. The sentence is false. This is indisputable. I have provided citations that falsify the sentence. You need to either provide citations, or move on. Gaborlewis (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis

As stated on your talk page, the phrase was incorrect because it missed a word, namely the word addiction (there should be "sex addiction" instead of "sex"). So, ok, granted, the phrase was incorrect, now it is corrected and sources have been offered. In fact Ley, Prause and Finn do not say that Delta FosB was not tied to sex, they say it was not tied to sex addiction, which is quite another matter (I have checked this myself, their paper can be downloaded from ). Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ley, Prause and Finn review has been thoroughly discredited. Their discussion of deltafosb is nonsensical. See - The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Fractured Fairytale Posing As A Review

Please stop citing Ley. He has never published any research. The worlds expert on Dletafosb, and one of the top addiction researchers in the world disagrees Eric Nestler with Ley. On his lab's website he sates:

QUESTION: Do these changes occur naturally in your brain without the influence of a drug of abuse?

ANSWER: “It is likely that similar brain changes occur in other pathological conditions which involve the excessive consumption of natural rewards, conditions such as pathological over-eating, pathological gambling, sex addictions, and so on.”Gaborlewis (talk) 16:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis

Except that the medical consensus from 2013 was that there was insufficient research in order to prove the existence of "sex addiction". Of course, if you know a scientific paper relying upon empirical data which states that Delta FosB is linked with sex addiction, feel free to cite it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
In case you missed it, their paper is literature research, so whatever they say therein comes from papers published by other scientists. So you cannot claim that Ley, Prause and Finn speak only for themselves. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaborlewis (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis As stated it was not a review of the literature. It was a biased PR mechanism that has worked well ofr them, but it was not a review. The authors of this review -

1) Omitted all the studies demonstrating the negative effects of porn use. Yes. you read that correctly.

2) Misrepresented the content of several studies they cited in support of their thesis. This was done by cherry-picking sentences out of context.

3) Cited at least 10 studies that had absolutely nothing to with the associated text. Who proof-read this thing?

4) Clearly believe only opioids can cause addiction - not cocaine, alcohol, or nicotine - and certainly not any behaviors. They are out of step with all addiction researchers and the DSM.

5) Denounced the DSM5 for creating a behavioral addiction category. The same DSM they praised for not including porn addiction.

6) Cited Nicole Prause's "in the press" studies, but refused to cite in the press studies by Cambridge University. Valerie Voon of Cambridge performed the first ever brain scan studies on porn addicts. Voon found all the markers of addiction.

7) Clearly did not understand the role of DeltaFosB in reward or addiction. One of the top researchers on deltafosb said their section of Deltafosb was like a bad Saturday night parody.

8) Ignored several brain studies on Internet addicts, which included porn addiction as one of the internet applications. 9) Cited studies from 1980"s to refute the concepts of behavioral addictions.

10) Omitted the mountain of empirical evidence that demonstrates behavioral addictions involve the same shared set of mechanisms and brain changes which occur in drug addictions.

11) Omitted the 2011 new definition of addiction by the American Society of Addiction Medicine. ASAM sated that all addictions are one condition and that behavioral addictions, including sexual behavior addiction, are every bit as real as drug addiction. Note that ASAM contains Many of the researchers that provide the hard data.

All of this is meticulously documented here -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborlewis (talkcontribs)

Some problems with your source: it's a blog, and blogs aren't generally seen as reliable sources; it's anonymous (if it were the blog of a full professor at a reputable university, it could still be quoted as expressing his own views on the subject). Blogs don't trump peer-reviewed papers. These being said, all references to Delta FosB have been removed from the article, and you won't get them back through attacking Ley, Prause and Finn, but only through citing peer-reviewed papers published in reputable journals which explicitly say that Delta FosB is tied to sex addiction (i.e. not to natural reward for sex, but to "sex addiction", mentioned verbatim). Since as these authors claim, many papers discussing sex addiction lack empirical data, we could only accept articles which actually have some empirical research to back them up. I told you to open a topic at WP:RSN if you want Ley, Prause and Finn's paper banned from being cited inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gaborlewis (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis. The authors in the review made several claims in their text, yet the citations did not match the text, or the studies actually conflicted the text. In addition, Ley, et al dismissed all peer-reviewed studies that contradicted their claims. Finally, they misrepresented the current state of addiction neuroscience. Please try to cite original source material. The ley, et al, paper has been invalidated. Quotes from Ley are a joke. Studies please.

Gaborlewis (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)Gaborlewis. My request is that that you an others not cite the Ley, et al. e review. The claims are not backed by the citations. Instead, would you please cite source material for your claims. On this page I have documented the many claims and the misuses of citations.

A blog post does not trump a peer-reviewed paper. First publish it with peer review, then will Wikipedia listen. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tgeorgescu. You have new messages at Ï¿½'s talk page.
Message added 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

� (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

The Pulse (WP:MED newsletter) June 2014[edit]

The first edition of The Pulse has been released. The Pulse will be a regular newsletter documenting the goings-on at WPMED, including ongoing collaborations, discussions, articles, and each edition will have a special focus. That newsletter is here.

The newsletter has been sent to the talk pages of WP:MED members bearing the {{User WPMed}} template. To opt-out, please leave a message here or simply remove your name from the mailing list. Because this is the first issue, we are still finding out feet. Things like the layout and content may change in subsequent editions. Please let us know what you think, and if you have any ideas for the future, by leaving a message here.

Posted by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Medicine.

BMJ offering 25 free accounts to Wikipedia medical editors[edit]

Neat news: BMJ is offering 25 free, full-access accounts to their prestigious medical journal through The Wikipedia Library and Wiki Project Med Foundation (like we did with Cochrane). Please sign up this week: Wikipedia:BMJ --Cheers, Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Intercultural Open University Foundation[edit]

Looking at the above article it still has some serious problems with references, some listed here: Talk:Intercultural_Open_University_Foundation#Questionable_references. There are also a number of dead links, which I've tagged. I found a couple of critical links, but in retrospect, they're probably not WP:RS: Talk:Intercultural_Open_University_Foundation#Some_interesting_links. In any case, the article needs an overhaul in the references and probably some edits for WP:WEASEL and WP:PEACOCK. Autarch (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Religious Views[edit]

Hi, thanks for the recorrections! I was just trying to share what I had discovered in the Bible concerning porn, but am amazed it is pointless. Nevertheless, no hard feelings, bottomline is Lust is another name for adultery, thanks! • Aikolugbara (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bible can be interpreted in a million different ways. E.g., if the Bible does condemn pornography, does the Song of Songs have to be eliminated from the Bible? That is a serious question and Michael Coogan told in an interview that when he was studying in the theological seminary, the Song of Songs was razored out of their Bibles, so that it won't make them fall into temptation. For interpreting the Bible Wikipedia only trusts theologians (theology only states subjective views, i.e. views that are accepted by a certain church and rejected by other churches, so their views always have to be stated with attribution, like "Catholics believe this, Protestants believe that"), Bible scholars, religion scholars and historians. That's why most arguments relying upon Bible verses are treated like original research. There is one exception to this rule, i.e. state that the Bible contains a certain word or speaks about a certain action, but without interpreting what the Bible might want to teach by that, and that word or action has to be mentioned verbatim in the quoted verses. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


Dear Tgeorgescu: I was sorry to see your reversion of my edit of 12 June 2014. I was trying to substitute precise dates for which there is evidence, with "fl." meaning "active", for vague ones for which I think there is no evidence. Isn't that what Wikipedia wants? HuPi (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It is just that I could not find the acronym "fl." on Google, so I presumed you have put in Jesus's presumed year of birth and of decease. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
You should have tried Wikipedia! HuPi (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Klocek again[edit]

I believe the IP who made this edit is User:Klocek User:Klocek was indef-blocked.

I think the indef-blocked editor has returned. He is ignoring the concerns and is adding poor sources[6][7] and OR again. He is even deleting sourced text again. I think a checkuser investigation might help. I'm not sure how to file a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Klocek. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

QuackGuru, you are again making accusations without any real evidence, which only tells me you're trying to justify your disruptive edits. I've read your block log, you are continuously edit warring and have been warned about it and blocked many times for this, and recently made the same unfounded accusations about me to KWW who ignored them.Milliongoldcoinpoint (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC) Confirmed sock comments stricken. QuackGuru (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Sex Addiction[edit]

You removed a citation because it's an "anonymous blog, does not pass WP:MEDRS nor WP:MEDASSESS" and then later you removed other information because it's unverifiable. Then you slipped in a statement that in the US there was a medical consensus disproving sexual addiction. First, the information is verifiable and I will work to provide acceptable citations. Did you read the linked article? -- There are plenty of acceptable citations in that long article which completely debunks the UCLA study, plus there are interviews where Prause initially states her study wasn't intended to measure addiction. It's a bogus study. The preceding study in the article is equally bogus. Neither of them prove anything, but their inclusion is totally misleading. As for the DSM5 -- all interviews state there wasn't enough information to include sex addiction, NOT that sex addiction has been disproved. There is no medical consensus anywhere to that. I think you should rewrite -- if you don't, I will.TBliss (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, right: blog trumps peer-reviewed, WP:MEDRS-compliant paper. Are you kidding? Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
The blog provides links to dozens of peer-reviewed, WP:MEDRS-compliant papers that totally trump the BS UCLA study, yeah dude. When I have time, I will bypass the blog and provide direct citations to the studies that back it up. You should read it. You're barking up the wrong tree.TBliss (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Take it to WP:RSN, it was already an inconclusive attempt upon that paper, search the archive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter[edit]

Medical translation.svg

Wikiproject Medicine; Translation Taskforce

Stetho book.jpg

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 1, June/July 2014
by CFCF, Doc James

sign up for monthly delivery

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg

This is the first of a series of newsletters for Wikiproject Medicine's Translation Task Force. Our goal is to make all the medical knowledge on Wikipedia available to the world, in the language of your choice.

note: you will not receive future editions of this newsletter unless you *sign up*; you received this version because you identify as a member of WikiProject Medicine

Spotlight - Simplified article translation

Wikiproject Medicine started translating simplified articles in February 2014. We now have 45 simplified articles ready for translation, of which the first on African trypanosomiasis or sleeping sickness has been translated into 46 out of ~100 languages. This list does not include the 33 additional articles that are available in both full and simple versions.

Our goal is to eventually translate 1,000 simplified articles. This includes:

We are looking for subject area leads to both create articles and recruit further editors. We need people with basic medical knowledge who are willing to help out. This includes to write, translate and especially integrate medical articles.

What's happening?

IEG grant
CFCF - "IEG beneficiary" and editor of this newsletter.

I've (CFCF) taken on the role of community organizer for this project, and will be working with this until December. The goals and timeline can be found here, and are focused on getting the project on a firm footing and to enable me to work near full-time over the summer, and part-time during the rest of the year. This means I will be available for questions and ideas, and you can best reach me by mail or on my talk page.

Wikimania 2014

For those going to London in a month's time (or those already nearby) there will be at least one event for all medical editors, on Thursday August 7th. See the event page, which also summarizes medicine-related presentations in the main conference. Please pass the word on to your local medical editors.

Integration progress

There has previously been some resistance against translation into certain languages with strong Wikipedia presence, such as Dutch, Polish, and Swedish.
What was found is that thre is hardly any negative opinion about the the project itself; and any such critique has focused on the ways that articles have being integrated. For an article to be usefully translated into a target-Wiki it needs to be properly Wiki-linked, carry proper citations and use the formatting of the chosen target language as well as being properly proof-read. Certain large Wikis such as the Polish and Dutch Wikis have strong traditions of medical content, with their own editorial system, own templates and different ideas about what constitutes a good medical article. For example, there are not MEDRS (Polish,German,Romanian,Persian) guidelines present on other Wikis, and some Wikis have a stronger background of country-specific content.

  • Swedish
    Translation into Swedish has been difficult in part because of the amount of free, high quality sources out there already: patient info, for professionals. The same can be said for English, but has really given us all the more reason to try and create an unbiased and free encyclopedia of medical content. We want Wikipedia to act as an alternative to commercial sources, and preferably a really good one at that.
    Through extensive collaborative work and by respecting links and Sweden specific content the last unintegrated Swedish translation went live in May.
  • Dutch
    Dutch translation carries with it special difficulties, in part due to the premises in which the Dutch Wikipedia is built upon. There is great respect for what previous editors have created, and deleting or replacing old content can be frowned upon. In spite of this there are success stories: Anafylaxie.
  • Polish
    Translation and integration into Polish also comes with its own unique set of challenges. The Polish Wikipedia has long been independent and works very hard to create high quality contentfor Polish audience. Previous translation trouble has lead to use of unique templates with unique formatting, not least among citations. Add to this that the Polish Wikipedia does not allow template redirects and a large body of work is required for each article.
    (This is somewhat alleviated by a commissioned Template bot - to be released). - List of articles for integration
  • Arabic
    The Arabic Wikipedia community has been informed of the efforts to integrate content through both the general talk-page as well as through one of the major Arabic Wikipedia facebook-groups: مجتمع ويكيبيديا العربي, something that has been heralded with great enthusiasm.
Integration guides

Integration is the next step after any translation. Despite this it is by no means trivial, and it comes with its own hardships and challenges. Previously each new integrator has needed to dive into the fray with little help from previous integrations. Therefore we are creating guides for specific Wikis that make integration simple and straightforward, with guides for specific languages, and for integrating on small Wikis.

Instructions on how to integrate an article may be found here [10]

News in short

To come
  • Medical editor census - Medical editors on different Wikis have been without proper means of communication. A preliminary list of projects is available here.
  • Proofreading drives

Further reading

Thanks for reading! To receive a monthly talk page update about new issues of the Medical Translation Newsletter, please add your name to the subscriber's list. To suggest items for the next issue, please contact the editor, CFCF (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine/Translation Taskforce/Newsletter/Suggestions.
Want to help out manage the newsletter? Get in touch with me CFCF (talk · contribs)
For the newsletter from Wikiproject Medicine, see The Pulse

If you are receiving this newsletter without having signed up, it is because you have signed up as a member of the Translation Taskforce, or Wiki Project Med on meta. 22:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Userspace drafts. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Historicity of Jesus". MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 02:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Historicity of Jesus". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The Exodus[edit]

The Exodus

The article is not academically balanced and I wanted to present a counter view. It is academically careless to argue that something is impossible when clearly there is disagreement in academic circles. The article as presently crafted reads that a date of 1406 for the beginning of the conquest is "impossible," and I wanted to ensure readers that there are many who believe it is indeed possible and even likely. Perhaps my comments were "original research," which can be easily remedied, but again I think it is also "original research" to state that an early date for the exodus is "impossible" when many think otherwise.

  - Dr. Daniel McCabe
    College of Biblical Studies  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC) 
See (short text, reads easily). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I read the link. I'm not trying to present an evangelical view. I'm trying to temper the majority view which has its detractors even among non-evangelicals. John Garstang in the 1930s who dug at Jericho believed in an early date of 1400 for the destruction of Jericho though it was Kathleen Kenyon whose views have been popularized. Professor Peter Parr (hardly an evangelical) who himself worked with Kathleen Kenyon in Jericho believes that an early dating of Jericho (in disagreement with Kenyon) is an open question. If those views were presented, would they be allowed to be published to present a balanced view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Is that a "no" to Garstang and Parr? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I am not making the call by myself, so what I say here is just my view (but cited policies are Wikipedia's rules). If you want to improve the article, you may add information to The Exodus and see if it stays there. Wikipedia does have a very strong preference for the majority view of the mainstream scholars in all its articles, that's not negotiable, see WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, it's just that it would be terribly disappointing for Garstang's view in particular to be completely overlooked simply because the mainstream may have preferred Kenyon's view. We both could agree that "bias" affects even a "mainstream" viewpoint as Thomas Kuhn pointed out well in his classic, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the abstract claim that the mainstream can be or is biased does not change Wikipedia's rules. All Wikipedia articles present mainstream scholarly consensus as fact, and this only becomes a problem where there is no mainstream consensus; in such a case Wikipedia simply presents all notable views, proportionally to the support they have in mainstream sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I get your point. On the other hand, my point remains that mainstream "fact" should not argue without warrant that other views are "impossible" as does the article as presently crafted, for otherwise we would still be living on a "flat" earth with the sun orbiting around the earth. Archaeological interpretation is hardly an unassailable science. If a mainstream position believes itself to be unassailable and opposed to any scholarly dissent by well-studied men whether like myself or certainly by men like Garstang and Parr, then it becomes in danger of protecting its views at great risk of missing "possibilities" which may later be determined to be true by a subsequent "mainstream" or at the very least becomes jaded to its own potential biases. Thanks for the exchange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I’ve read these books. And others. On Hoffmeier, note his conclusion re: his own archaeological work is that the idea of an exodus isn’t impossible. He knows very well he hasn’t proven anything. You should also know that in virtually any academic discipline there is always a voice of dissent. This is good, but for the few names you list here, many more could be listed voicing the opposite view

— Peter Enns
I have no doubt that the theological view that "the Exodus happened because God wanted so, as written in the Bible" is notable and should be rendered (as theology, not as history). However, the view that "we know the Exodus has happened because there is historical evidence for it" is a fringe view. And Enns is much closer to evangelical Christianity than I am or most mainstream historians are. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even arguing the question of whether or not the Bible is true or not in our exchange. That's peripheral to my point. I'm pointing out the striking statement on the Wikipedia page that a date for the Exodus of 1446 is "impossible" based in part on archaeological evidence. If the mainstream is arguing against the very historicity of the Exodus, then that's one thing, and it's a position which I can honorably acknowledge, but to argue for the impossibility of a 1446 date BASED ON the archaeological finds at Jericho is academically ingenuous given the dissent of Garstang, one of the three premier site archaeologists in Jericho's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

You should both be having this discussion on the article talk page at The Exodus so that others can contribute. Dr McCabe, you should add a "citation needed" tag to the end of that paragraph and explain on the Talk page why you did so. (I.e., because the paragraph makes a series of claims without saying where they come from, the claims being: "Egyptian records of that period do not mention the expulsion of any group that could be identified with over two million Hebrew slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues, and digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BCE — in fact many of them, including Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of Joshua, were uninhabited at the time.") PiCo (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
(You add the "citation needed" tag by putting two curley-brackets, typing in cn, then closing it with two more curley brackets, [citation needed]. Please don't leave any messages on my personal talk page as I don't talk to anyone. PiCo (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Historicity of Jesus, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Incompetent editor who pushes Fringe and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Ret.Prof (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your revert of my justified, and well explained revision.[edit]

In your private message to me, you said the following:

"Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Gender of God without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page."

In the log for the revision I made, you can CLEARLY see that I explained why I made the revision. I also linked, in the commit-log, to my section on the Talk page of the article where I provided an extensive explanation of the rationale for my revision, quoting relevant parts of the Scripture. I am going to take the liberty of reverting your revert, and I would like you to respond on the Talk Page for the article (, if you have any points of dissent.

Please do not falsely accuse me of failing to explain my changes again. I very clearly justified them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

It's just that your explanation is baseless, according to Wikipedia rules. The warning messages is a standard message. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined as withdrawn[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Misconduct in the Christianity topic case request has been declined as withdrawn. You can review the original case request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits removed - porn addiction[edit]


Hi, you said on my page that I didn't leave a reason for removing a dead link. You can see in the history that I did leave a reason, and the reference isn't needed to make the point that "internet content-control software" can be helpful in fighting addiction, when you already have two other references that support it. Any way, I respect the fact that you want the study to still be cited, regardless of whether it is still available or completely necessary, but I needed to clear up what you said on my page because I did leave a valid reason.

As for the link that I added, which you removed, I don't think it's marketing at all. It's a free discussion forum and support group for sufferers. You've left the link up to a barely edited and maintained DMOZ category, which lists a half dozen promotional/commercial sites on the subject. I feel that providing a free and unbiased source for readers that I know has helped me is more than justified. Annapaastinash (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just take care of not violating WP:Advocacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't attempt to silence good evidence. What I silence is bad evidence, bad arguments and activism (propaganda). If it were an objective fact, no activism would be needed. When it will be really, really proven (part of medical orthodoxy), I will accept it as a fact. I will have no problem with doing that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is a support group bad evidence? Bad evidence of what exactly? I am not violating WP:Advocacy. I'm not promoting a personal belief or agenda; the fact that I approve of the website does not make any difference to me adding it to the wiki. It is a matter of relevance, and it is a very large and active community for porn addicts, whereas the other external links from DMOZ are either dead links, abandoned for the last 7+ years or focused on treating porn addiction with a religious agenda. Annapaastinash (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:NOT Wikipedia isn't a web directory, not a place to find a therapist, not a means of soapboxing and not in the business of diagnosing people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

There is one link on the page. Adding one more does not make Wikipedia a web directory or any of your other claims. The site is well within the guidelines as to what is acceptable to link to. It is relevant and useful to include on the page. Annapaastinash (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

See WP:EL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
And WP:FANSITE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


I had a look at the Coommentary of the Rambam on Sanhedrin 7:4, and he does say that there is no punishment for masturbation, however I did not see him say that it "could not be punishable since there is not explicit prohibition". That is already an explanation, not just a statement of fact, and that explanation is not mentioned by the Rambam. By which I do not mean to say it is incorrect, but I think we should stick to the sources and mention only that there is no punishment and leave speculation as to the reasons for other venues, not Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Gospel of Matthew. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • with Coogan upon this book.<ref>[ The Young Turks]] December 21, 2010.</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014[edit]

Medical translation.svg
Stetho book.jpg

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014

sign up for monthly delivery

Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg

Feature – Ebola articles[edit]

Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:
New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats
Further reading

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bart D. Ehrman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Tgeorgescu,

Thank you for your message. My edit removed text from the acupuncture page that had poor quality citation (POV claims using an editorial article as reference, cited as fact without qualification or quotation, which is not in line with WP policy). In addition, the text did nothing to further the content of the article but rather interrupted the flow, introduced extraneous and irrelevant content about TCM where there is already a link to that page, and re-stated existing comments about "pseudoscience" (which in both of my edits was mentioned already only a couple of sentences before the removed text).

I would argue that my edits actually made the article more neutral, not less so, although you may disagree. I think that claims of "pseudoscience" are quite loaded in contemporary usage of the word, often being synonymous with "charlatan" or "quackery". Of course, this may not be the intended meaning, but in common usage this is often what is understood, and is seen as a negative attack. (If this IS the intended meaning, however, I think that a review of the scientific literature and the litany of scientific studies on the subject shows mainstream, widespread interest on the part of the established scientific community in this tradition, and although the results are very mixed, the ongoing debate shows that the claims at least cannot be casually dismissed.) If the intention is to convey that these traditions are not based on scientific method, I think a better usage is simply "not based on scientific method" or just "unscientific". In addition, phrases like "dismissed as pseudoscience" or "criticized as pseudoscience" (with proper citation to authors who have made these claims) I think is acceptable, since this conveys the POV nature of the claims.

So first off, if you would like to re-instate the removed content, please find a proper phrasing and citation that meets WP policy. That is, no primary sources like editorials from Nature (this is a medicine article, after all), and in the rare case that a primary source is necessary, please use quotations and a reference to the source to make clear that the content is not fact but is a POV expressed by the publication or researchers. In addition, to maintain neutrality, please consider avoiding the use of loaded words like "pseudoscience" which are commonly perceived to be very negative in connotation in favor of phrases like "not based on scientific method" which is more neutral.

Also, please write a coherent argument and address the points that I've made in my edit summary on the talk page before you revert. Thank you! (talk) 23:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What does "user page reviewed" mean?[edit]

I got a notification that my user page was reviewed. It said, "User:FloraWilde was reviewed by Use:Tgeorgescu 6 minutes ago". What is a review of a user page? FloraWilde (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well the page asked me to patrol it, meaning to confirm that it wasn't a product of vandalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I just started the page so that's probably why a notice to patrol got issued. Thanks. :) FloraWilde (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration, Historicity of Jesus[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Discretionary sanctions at Historicity of Jesus and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 6, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 20:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS violations[edit]

I believe that topics should be the under effects and it is not providing any sort of medical advice. You shoud read the content again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Krujal (talkcontribs)

Any medical claim (including medical effects and addictions) has to obey WP:MEDRS. See why at User:Jytdog/Why MEDRS? Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Tgeorgescu, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015.
Happy editing,
JudeccaXIII (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Historicity of Jesus arbitration case - proposed decision posted[edit]

This is a courtesy message to inform you that the proposed decision has been posted for the Historicity of Jesus arbitration case. Constructive, relevant comments are welcome on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk).

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historicity of Jesus closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

6) Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) is warned to not engage in personal attacks or cast aspersions of bias and intent against other editors. 7) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) from editing Historicity of Jesus.[11] It is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban affecting the Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed, and enforcement of the ban should be discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Fearofreprisal is cautioned that if they disrupt and breach restrictions, they may be subject to increasingly severe sanctions. They may appeal this ban to the Committee in no less than twelve months time.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 11:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) (Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Arbitration case request[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikiBullying and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, It appears the filing party did not notify the named parties. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 13:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#WikiBullying and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PS Sorry for the edit comflict1

Arbitration case request declined[edit]

Hi Tgeorgescu, the Arbitration Committee has declined the WikiBullying arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 15:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference to The Sensuous in the Counter-Reformation Church on Marriage[edit]

Hey, I've been going around fixing ISBNs, and went to fix one on Marriage. I checked the edit that added the incorrect "978110701323032-36", because I figured that the "32-36" at the end might be page numbers (the correct ISBN is 978-1-107-01323-0). I noticed that you added it, but when checking the Google Books preview of the source to double-check for the page numbers, I didn't see verification for the facts cited to it. I've immediately put in put in a stopgap to fix the ISBN, but I'd appreciate if you'd check over the reference to make sure it actually verifies the facts cited to it, and possibly fix it further. :) Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 02:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I replied at Talk:Marriage#ISBN problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: Exodus edit[edit]

I'm writing you concerning your reversion of my edit to the Exodus page. It was reverted because it was considered original research, by which I am confused. I cite Exodus 1:9, which states that the Jews were more numerous than the Egyptians; that's a verifiable citation, not research: Exodus 1:8-9: "Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we."

The statement of the area needed to house 2.5 million people is the simplest of math, hardly research. (2,500,000 people)*(100 feet^2/person)/(5280 feet/mile)^2=8.96 mile^2. That is purely a clarifying statement of how much space that many people would consume, as the 150 mile long column is frankly misleading, even if it is in a published book. Why on earth 2 million people would walk in a line 10 abreast is beyond the pale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The analysis of the Bible should be left to scholars who do it for a living, Wikipedia editors are banned from doing it, except for the most obvious and uncontroversial claims. Do mind that Wikipedia has policies such as WP:VER and WP:OR in order to prevent editors from inserting their own musings inside Wikipedia articles. Scholarship should be left to scholars, Wikipedia editors simply render an abstract of what scholars wrote. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Neither of the statements I added fall under the descriptions of WP:VER and WP:OR: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.)"

"In Wikipedia, verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view."

Both statements I added to the article are completely verifiable, and one is a direct quote from the topic of the article, the text of Exodus from the bible. The text of Exodus is cited in various places elsewhere in the article. How is this different?

I made *no* analysis of the biblical text; I cite what it says. If this is analysis, then all usage of other citations in the article are analysis of their sources and should be excluded as original research. In the text I cite, it explicitly says that the number of Jews was larger than the number of Egyptians; how that is off topic, unverifiable, or unciteable in an article concerning the text of the Book of Exodus is quite interesting to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nomnompuffs - sorry to intrude here, but I responded to your call for a 3O on the Gender of God page. I think you might not understand what constitutes a reliable source here. WP works mainly off secondary sources, and in this context the Bible is a primary source. So while what you say is correct - that the Bible says such and such - what is needed is a secondary source that literally says "the Bible says such and such". Do you see the difference? It needs to be a reputable other person making that statement, not just a WP editor. Otherwise this is called WP:OR (Original Research) because it is you who is editing the article based on your own analysis, rather than editing the article based on the analysis of some other reputable person. I hope that helps clarify what seems to be going on. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Quoted from User talk:Nomnompuffs.
The point I was making was that you, an editor, quote a primary religious source in order to argue with Bible scholars. The Bible isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia and your claim isn't uncontroversial: you cannot simply pick a Bible verse and pretend that it trumps Bible scholarship. Your mathematical musings about how the Israelites were marching cannot be accepted, unless they are published in a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not arguing with anybody. I am only stating verifiable facts pertinent to the article. I am quoting the primary source of which the article is concerned. From the Wikipedia documentation concerning primary and secondary sources, it explicitly describes that using primary sources for this purpose is preferable, and finding a secondary source that says the bible says such and such is not preferable:

"Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources."

"Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source. This person does not have to be able to determine that the material in the article or in the primary source is True™. The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what we're saying it does."

Could you explain how my usage is in violation of the usage of primary sources?

As for my mathematical musings, it's just math, verifiable, explicit, and to the point, in no way in contradiction with the rest of the article (although pertinent to the topic being addressed). If I need to find a secondary source that 2*2=4, I'll be hard pressed. If this is original research, then forming logical sentences might also be considered original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Such quote mining from Wikipedia policies is prohibited by Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. An obvious and uncontroversial claim would be "According to 1 Kings, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines." Such a direct claim would not be a violation of WP:OR, even if in the end it is not historically certain that Solomon has existed. For the rest of the claims, a secondary source is required, especially for linking a Bible verse with an estimate made by contemporary historians in order to plead the case that the narrative of the Bible would be objectively verified. Even if the Bible would be a reliable source, such claim would be prohibited by WP:SYNTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The statement "According to 1 Kings, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines" is ok. The statement "According to 1 Kings, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines, there is good evidence for such ancient harems, therefore Solomon did exist" is original research. Wikipedia editors are not allowed to produce novel claims, scholars have to produce novel claims and only then may Wikipedia editors render those. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

How is "According to 1 Kings, Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines" different from "However, this is in agreement with the biblical account of the Exodus, which states the Jewish people were more numerous than the Egyptians at that time (Exodus 1:9; KJV)"? I never make a value judgment. Where in my statement do I say "therefore the exodus occurred", or "there is good evidence that..." There is no claim in any of my proposed edits. You keep saying there is, but there isn't. I solely quote that the book of Exodus stated that there were more Jews in Egypt than Egyptians at the time, which is in agreement with the conclusion of Butzer 1999. If you are concerned with the word "However" because it sounds argumentative, I could reword it as "According to Exodus 1:8-9, the Jewish people were more numerous than the Egyptians immediately prior to the supposed Exodus." Would that be more amenable to you? Then there is no difference between your example of an ok quote, and my proposed edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

A sentence can be elliptical, i.e. suggest a conclusion which is not stated verbatim in the text, but which is self-understood. If Butzer stated that the Exodus was right in assuming there were more Hebrews than Egyptians, I don't oppose making such statement. What I oppose is stating a novel insight, which is not mentioned in the reliable sources. In this case the statement should be verifiable in Butzer's text. What I oppose is an editor stating his own insight that the Exodus is corroborated by Butzer's numbers, which would be original research or original synthesis (combining two sources in order to reach a conclusion which neither of the sources reached). So, if Butzer stated that the Exodus story is compatible with his demographics, go ahead, and illustrate his insight with a Bible verse; otherwise don't do it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Why would it be a novel insight? Because Bible authors did not know 20th century estimates of the Egyptian demographics. So they cannot possibly mean 20th century data. The novel insight would be to posit that the ancient writing is corroborated by 20th century data. If that is what Butzer meant, provide a quotation, otherwise you are not entitled to posit a novel insight. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Book of Revelation[edit]

You deleted my submission re: Book of Revelation. Who are you to stop someone from quoting the actual text? Do you have some agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lapierredav (talkcontribs) 23:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to edit Wikipedia you have to understand and comply with its policies and guidelines. I have already indicated which policy you have violated. Read it and take heed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Integrity (mathematics) listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Integrity (mathematics). Since you had some involvement with the Integrity (mathematics) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Theosophist (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


See WP:WRONG (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Religious views on masturbation 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. ~ RobTalk 12:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, my understanding was that reverting wholesale deletions of verifiable content isn't a reason for blocking, especially when you consider that Dobson has a right to speak for himself and for his audience even if he would be wrong; as long as we state his views with attribution, these are completely germane to the discussed article. In fact we do not say if he is right or wrong, we simply say that he stated something for his audience and quote such statements. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As made clear in the edit summaries, there is contention over whether those sources are actually reliable. You can find the only exemptions to the three-revert rule at WP:3RRNO. Notably, reverting vandalism is only exempt when it is obvious vandalism, and the general addition or removal of content (which this falls under) is not exempt. ~ RobTalk 13:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On intelligent design...[edit]

Not to be crude..but arguing with these folks is like mental masturbation. Don't argue. Ignore. Please. Juan Riley (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Scuze, Domnule TGeorgescu[edit]

Aveti multa dreptate. Ma refer la faptul ca aveti dreptate ca romanii care au emigrat in Europa au muncit bine si s-au remarcat ca oameni de nadejde in tarile adoptive.

Acum va rog sa cititi un articol al unui editor al sitului Bucharest Expat, un britanic.

Imi cer mii de scuze ca m-am exprimat gresit, dar discutia nu este despre romanii din Europa, ci despre numele luat de comunitatea rroma. Chiar daca comunitatea rroma doreste sa isi spuna rom sau romanes sau romani in limba lor, tot nu inseamna ca numele romani people ii reprezinta doar pe ei. In mod egal, ne reprezinta si pe noi, romanii, care ne spunem romani, si ii reprezinta si pe cetatenii imperiului roman care si-au spus romani.

In mod normal, pagina despre poporul romani ar fi trebuit sa fie o pagina de dezambiguare. Asta am vrut sa spun in primul rand. Inca odata, scuze, imi pare rau ca m-am exprimat putin mai radical si alarmist, pentru a obtine suportul romanilor care au trecut prin diverse probleme in Europa. Personal, sunt de multi, multi ani in Canada, si am si eu diplome ca si dvs. Suntem cam de aceeasi varsta, vad ca am luat bacalaureatul cu putini ani mai devreme ca dvs :) .... Romanii care au emigrat in Canada, romanii de aici, nu avem problemele de a nu fi lasati sa stam la Holiday Inn Express chiar cu rezervare online, doar pentru ca pe pasaport scrie roman si pentru ca hotelul are regula de a nu primi romani, ca sa dau doar un singur exemplu luat din stirile recente din UK.

Dumneavaostra aveti dreptate sa imi criticati modul de exprimare. Si imi pare rau ca nu am stiut sa aleg alte cuvinte....

Nu, nu sunt rasist, si imi cer scuze ca m-am exprimat gresit. Ca paranteza, sa stiti ca toti romanii pe care ii cunsoc din Europa (oameni cu facultate, ca si mine, nu hoti sau cersetori) mi-au spus ce probleme majore intampina in Franta sau in UK... din cauza confuziei. Nu imi place acest subiect, si as dori sa fiu cat mai departe de acest subiect al aceste confuzii de nume.

Revenind la subiect: Ar trebui sau nu ar trebui ca pagina Romani people sa prezinte doar o dezambiguare - doar cu linkuri de urmat? Linkuri cu poporul nostru, cu poporul roman (de la Roma) si poporul mai nou numit romani (poporul rrom sau cum doriti sa il denumiti dvs). Asta pentru ca, asa cum a scris si expatul britanic, confuzia este mare, diferenta intre Romani si tara numita Romania este de doar o singura litera la sfarsitul cuvantului. Dezambiguarea ar face dreptate tuturor popoarelor care isi spun in limba lor romani.

Va rog sa intelegeti ca prin modul meu de exprimare v-am provocat la o reactie rapida, si eu urasc rasistii, si nu va acuz deloc, va inteleg... dar este o neintelegere din cauza exprimarii. In miezul mesajului nu este vorba de rasism, exprimarea gresita a condus catre aceasta pista, dar este vorba doar de numele respectiv Romani, este acest nume al unui singur popor sau exista si alte popoare cu acel nume? Cu respect, va rog sama scuzati si va rog sa imi mai dati o sansa. --Sicama (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved by me, User:John Carter, from User:Tgeorgescu[edit]

WP:NOTFORUM rant about biblical inerrancy

RESONSE TO Why am I a god and a Son of God?

To- Tgeorgescu- I hope you don't mind me editing your page, but I'm new to this and I wanted to reply to your post above. If you want to delete it, fine. I just ask that you read it first. You say that you "don't want to be associated with absurdities of the Bible." That is a very unfortunate statement. The truth is there are no “absurdities” in the Bible, but some people think there are. It’s a most unfortunate statement first, because it shows your obvious distrust of the Bible and second, what that actually means for you unless that view changes. The Bible is the Word of God Himself. That is a statement of fact, and a statement of faith. But without delving into that further for this response, let me just stick to what you said the Bible says about you and everyone. First, the Bible does not say what you think it says. The conclusion you draw from Psalm 82:6 is taken by taking the passage out of context. Psalm 82 does not say that all humans are gods and Sons of God. A seemingly obscure passage of scripture must not be interpreted in a way to pervert or contradict clear passages. All Scripture must be understood in the sense it was used at its place and time, according to grammar and in context. Psalm 82 is talking about the corrupt rulers of Israel who had abused the trust given them by God. These were men appointed by God to represent Him as judges among His people. They were not “gods” not because they were divine beings themselves (hence the quotes) but because of their position as God’s representatives. The Psalm calls for judgment upon them because they were violating that trust by persecuting the innocent and tolerating wickedness. It calls for judgment on “rulers” of today who do the same. Now in that context read verses 6 and 7 together (or better yet, the whole thing) 6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;

   you are all sons of the Most High.’

7 But you will die like mere mortals;

   you will fall like every other ruler.”

So this section of Scripture is not calling everyone “gods” or “sons of gods,” it is a reference only to the leaders or “rulers” of God’s people (i.e. his church).

Your interpretation of John 10:33-36 suffers from the same fundamental misunderstanding of the context. Jesus quotes this Psalm when confronted by Jewish leaders who were accusing Him of blasphemy by calling Himself the Son of God. The Jewish leaders would have understood the context and the reference Jesus was making where the Old Testament referred to mere human beings as “gods.” His point in quoting the Psalm was this: If the Old Testament referred to God’s earthly representatives - and mere human beings - as “gods,” what was their reason for being angry at God’s true Son from heaven – the ultimate representative of God on earth to His people – calling Himself the Son of God?

So the context and the usage of the term at that time and place show the true meaning to these passages. Additionally, this meaning does not contradict or pervert clear passages of scripture on the subject. These passages do not say that every human being is a god and Sons of God. Scripture is abundantly clear that there is only one Son of God and that is Jesus Christ. John 3:16 says: “16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Also there is John 1:18 which says: “18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[b] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

See also Matthew 3:16 -17.   There are numerous references I could site but these are sufficient.  The reason for the capitalization of “Son” in “Son of God” is because of Jesus’ divine nature as God.   

Finally, Genesis 6:2,4 and Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 does not speak about “Sons of God” with a capital “Son.” They reference “sons of God” which is simply a reference to God’s believing children. Sadly, not everyone who hears the Scripture being preached believes (has faith) and therefore are God’s children. It takes more than hearing Scripture preached to be a child of God, it takes believing what it says. See Jesus discuss this in his telling of the parable of the sower in Matthew 13. In view of your comment above that “[you] don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible.” I would strongly suggest you read it – all of it down to verse 23.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John637 (talkcontribs)

My point was: the Johanine standard for proving you are God is quoting Psalms 82:6. This observation is analytic-empirical correct in respect to the Gospel of John (it is a falsifiable statement). In order to repeat what I have stated above: I saw a BBC documentary wherein Francesca Stavrakopoulou was making the argument that that Psalm wasn't about men being divine, but that the Jewish god Yahweh was talking to other gods, battling other gods and killing them like people kill each other. The anonymous author of the Gospel of John simply picked a verse out of the context and turned it into an argument for showing that a man was divine. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply "Mr. T." I read the explanation of the point you said you were making, but candidly, I don't see that as the point you were making. At any rate, the gospel of John contains no "standard" for proving anyone other than God is God and that Jesus is God - the second person of the Trinity - the Son of God. John 20:31 "31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The Bible doesn't lie. That too is a statement of fact and of faith. While John does not identify himself by name, there is ample evidence for those who believe in the inerrancy of scripture that the gospel of John was written by John. Peter, James and John were the closest of the apostles to Jesus. John's references himself as "the one whom Jesus loved" in his gospel at John 13:23-24 and at 19:26. It clearly was not Peter given the description of events at the Last Supper. And James died as a martyr before this gospel was written. Some people like to doubt and debate things in the Bible, rather than simply believe it - that is to their loss. The thing that amazes me is how so many so-called "Bible Scholars" don't believe what it says and really try in vein to attack its accuracy or truthfulness. I assure you, John did not "simply [pick] a verse out of the context and [turn] it into an argument for showing that a man was divine." Jesus showed He was divine all by Himself, by fulfilling all 300+ prophecies about Him in the Old Testament, through His many miracles and by His resurrection from the dead. John never had any interest in showing that a mere human being was divine and never made any such showing or argument. John was quoting Jesus, not making some bogus argument based on distortions. The only person taking things out of context to make that false claim is you. Things can always be taken out of context and distorted, but that doesn't alter the truth of what the Bible actually says. It is simply a delusion based on a twisting or manipulation of a couple of sentences that can't be reconciled with the rest of Scripture. People who do that are only deceiving themselves. (John637) — Preceding unsigned comment added by John637 (talkcontribs) 21:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been reading the text under the assumption that Jesus has proven that he is God because in fact he was God. However, the Jews supposedly spoken to by Jesus worked under no such assumption. To them he was just another highfalutin preacher-magician. Upon the reliability of the Bible:

If I may be so bold, the reason you don’t see many credible scholars advocating for the “inerrancy” of the Bible is because, with all due respect, it is not a tenable claim. The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors.

— Robin Ngo, Bible Secrets Revealed. Robert Cargill responds to viewers’ questions on the History Channel series
See also Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect to "Bible Secrets Revealed" (and you call that a reliable source?) and the other unbelieving scholars out there, how many of them are God? You misunderstand what I said. I never said any such scholars were credible, quite the contrary. The reason they are NOT credible, is because they don't have the sense to know that God doesn't lie. My source for the inerrancy of the Bible is God himself. This is a quote from Jesus praying in Gethsemane "17 Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." John 17:17. And another quote from Jesus: "35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. "Matthew 24:35 His words are still here aren't they. There are no contradictions in the Bible and there are no errors. Not one. BTW- the History Channel is not a credible authority on Bible inerrancy. Inerrancy of the Bible is the ONLY tenable claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John637 (talkcontribs) 12:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not a fact, pal. That's wishful thinking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that you try to judge a priori a problem which can only be answered a posteriori. If those verses were kept and most of everything else would be changed to Advaita, you would still hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. "The Bible is the inerrant word of God" is a dogmatic statement. A true researcher asks "Can it be shown that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?". And by showing would understand empirical analysis, not preaching to the choir. Conflating the subjective (as in religious belief) with the objective (as in scientific fact) is a symptom of formal thinking trouble. Nobody denies your right to subjectively believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, but stating it as an objective fact inside an encyclopedia is ludicrous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The Johannine interpretation of Psalm 82 regards quoting that verse as a valid argument for being God. That's what I meant. In Stavrakopoulou's interpretation it doesn't. Stavrakopoulou isn't the author of the Gospel of John, so it is not a contradiction that different people attribute different meanings to that verse. The Johannine interpretation leads to absurd consequences, that's also my point. Anyway, you should read and abide by WP:NOTFORUM. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I read your message and I have a couple of points. I was responding to your post about Son's of God. That post was your interpretation of selected Bible passages not an encyclopedic article. You gave your opinion that the Bible contained "absurdities." I responded with historical context and interpretation of scripture citing the Bible. You seem to like to float guidelines and rules and apply them to everyone else to shut them off except yourself. Your opinion that the Bible contains error is itself your subjective opinion and is not an objective fact. (BTW -- I did not edit someone else's comments responding to you here, I only added my own comments.) Before you lecture someone else about following the guidelines on talk pages you should follow them yourself. That reminds of something Jesus said ( and yes, He actually said it) “How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? Matthew 7:4. I stated nothing in an encyclopedia. I stated it in a talk page responding to your attacks on the Bible. In the course of this dialogue you have:

 1) said that Bible says in Psalm 82 that all human beings are gods. 
 2) said that Jesus says in John 10 that "all human beings who heard the Scripture talking to them (e.g. heard the Scripture being preached by a priest or pastor inside a church) are gods."
 3) conclude that the Bible says that  "All humans are thus gods and Sons of God."
 4) stated that the Bible contains "absurdities"
 5) stated that "The anonymous author of the Gospel of John simply picked a verse out of the context and turned it into an argument for showing that a man was divine."
 6) stated that the gospel of John contains a standard for people to prove they are gods and that such a standard is found in Psalm 82
 7)  that it is an assumption that Jesus is God, disregarding all the objective proof that He is God, fulfilling 300+ prophecies made over thousands of years perfectly, raising the dead, walking on water, curing the lame, giving sight to the bind, and rising from the dead Himself 
 8) You express your skepticism that Jesus ever spoke to the Jews
 9)  stated  that The Bible is full of contradictions and, yes, errors.   Based on a series on the History Channel.  (No doubt for you, that is a “credible” source).

None of those views of yours are “objective facts” and they are not derived from any “empirical analysis.” It seems like for you, any source about the Bible is valid, except the Bible itself, as long as you agree with it. That is not anything unique to you per se, but it is obviously your bias and it influences what you will accept as reliable. I am well aware that not everyone believes the Bible is true – that is their loss and the truth will come out in the end. I’m glad I know where I stand. But what people believe about the Bible does not change facts that are true. I’m not going to deny the truth when responding to attacks on the Bible. I am going to respond with the truth. The Bible defends itself – it always has and it always will. My point is, if you can spout all of this nonsense about the Bible and what you think it says – and claim that a gospel writer took a Psalm out of context to make a silly argument that contradicts the rest of scripture, then I can set the record straight. And I will as long as you persist in claiming your bias and opinions are objective facts suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. BTW: I check out the link you suggested . I got a good laugh out of it. There they claim that there that there is little archaeological evidence showing Israel’s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt. Really? Well how do they explain the celebration of the Jewish Passover that has taken place for thousands of years ever since? Has this been some massive conspiracy (by Jews who BTW don’t believe in Jesus) to fool everyone into thinking that some Exodus happened that really never did? Have all these generations been participating in a fraud for thousands of years? Did the Israelites just think it was a cool story to pass down to every generation since? If they never were in slavery in Eygpt, never fled in the Exodus, never went to Mount Sinai, then where did the Ten Commandments comes from? Better yet, who was the genius that wrote them? And you think this web-link is a credible source? So who is being "ludicrous” now?John637 (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There isn't and there cannot be objective proof of someone being God: science cannot prove your pet theology, in certain falsifiable respects it can disprove it, though. Peter Enns is an evangelical scholar, but without the horse blinders and without the gag. What he states there is what is taught as fact in all major universities. The only ones amazed by it are those who never entered a secular university or a mainline divinity school in order to learn about the Bible. A fundamentalist will never find problems in his own holy book, but will find plenty of problems in the holy books of other religions. About the History Channel text, it is an interview with an academic, a Bible scholar, and in the respective shows there were interviewed Bible scholars even more established than he is. In fact, what they stated there isn't particularly new or revolutionary, but it is unknown to the ordinary churchgoers, since they don't know what universities and mainline divinity schools teach about the Bible:
Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith" (PDF). Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. Retrieved 2010-10-18. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people’s lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students’ cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don’t pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “historical-critical” method. It is completely different from the “devotional” approach to the Bible one learns in church.
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

T – Just because people refuse to see the nose in front of their face, doesn’t mean it isn’t there. Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Psalm 14:1 says “The fool says in his heart, “There is no God. …” It is no surprise that you cite to works entitled “A Historical Assault on faith.” Though I see you didn’t even try to answer the questions I raised about the Exodus of which your so called “scholars” said there was little evidence. I challenge you to find events (not artifacts mind you – events) occurring during that time frame which are more well documented and better memorialized than the Exodus. Assaults on God’s Word and faith in Him have been ongoing since the man’s fall into sin. Satan’s temptation to Eve started with “Did God really say . . .” Genesis 3:1. Some things never change. But all of these assaults will fail. “18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it.” Matthew 16:18. God’s word will accomplish the purpose for which he sent it. See Isaiah 55:10-11. As I said before, the Bible contains no errors and no contradictions. What does occur, however, is people manufacturing false contradictions (like you did misinterpreting Psalm 82 and John 10), by taking certain words or phrases out of context or confusing law passages with gospel passages. Also as I said before as well, notwithstanding the “historical critical” method, the ONLY tenable position is the inerrancy of scripture. The historical critical view frankly denies the authority of Scripture. That method rejects the verbal inspiration of the Bible and opens the door for people, such as yourself, to say that the Bible contains mistakes, inaccuracies and contradictions. That method rejects the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels that bear their names. It is a method of interpretation that leads people to look at Bible passages that are not popular today and say, “It would not be loving to take these words literally, so let’s see how the Spirit of God might lead us to understand and apply these words differently in our day and age.” This approach is consistent with what St. Paul described in 2 Timothy 4:3: “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” All I can do is testify to others about God’s Word: that all of it is true (John 17:17), that all of Scripture is inspired (2 Timothy 3:16) and that the words the human biblical authors wrote were the words they received from God (1 Corinthians 2:13). God does not lie and makes no mistakes. Do I think that will be enough for those that demand scientific proof? No. But that is not what faith is and that is not what the Bible is about. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God’s sight. As it is written: “He catches the wise in their craftiness”;” 1 Corinthians 3:19. No one who does not treat the Bible with the authority it deserves or who refuses to recognize what it is, God’s inspired Word,” is qualified to be a “scholar” about it. John637 (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Notifying you of a Dispute Regarding article[edit]

Please see here. LRappaport (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent OR unsourced additions to Mark;[edit]

I do not know how to revert an article to it's pre-edit state when there have been a slew of edits. Could you have a look at that? A Georgian (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

PiCo has already reverted the WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


HI Tgeorgescu, I would love to tell you Both YEHOWEH-YEHWEH\YEHOWAH-YEHWAH ARE THE CORRECT NAME OF GOD\THE CREATOR OR Only YEHOWEH-YEHWEH Is Only One True 100000000000000-Perquadrillion Correct Name Of God.Prophethu (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)ShunRenHu[1]



Why did you change my edits on the Biblical Christian Scrolls page? As the timeline is marked by the death of Jesus Christ, this common era business is not correct when it is concerned with a biblical page. It therefore should be BC - before Christ and AD - anno domini. I cannot fathom why Ce And BCE would be used on a Christian page...therefore I am requesting you to let me change it to the proper name Ccspeller (talk) 11:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls aren't Christian. You should stop appropriating. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Haha do what on earth is the bible then?! Maybe you should stop trying to wipe out HIStory....!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccspeller (talkcontribs) 18:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, SineBot. I'm not trying to wipe out history, i'm using the traditional non-secular version. For me, CE and BCE, are not correct. Martonio Isaac Sullivan — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

The scrolls belong to Judaism, not to Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Dispute over article on Carl Raschke[edit]

I see you said I was in an edit war. But this guy bloodofox is deleting every edit I make to Carl Raschke even when it's just a quotation from published books and he comes up with ridiculous reasons. He is clearly trying control the page so only negative things can be said. He says false things about wicca, of which I am a member, and wont even let me put those up. Can you get involved, please? He seems to be harassing me.```LH_Chicago

Well, he is right that medieval witchcraft is not the same as Wicca, even if Wicca claims to be the present-day successor of medieval witches. For Wikipedia purposes, pretending that a book about medieval witchcraft would speak about Wicca is called original research or original synthesis. Here we simply abstract what reliable sources say, we don't put words in their mouth. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Complaint by you[edit]

I am unable to defend myself about your complaint, as that page is semi-protected. In any case, an edit summary on my former talk page is not grounds for a block. Fidei Defensor (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

The first problem is not my problem. As far as the second problem is concerned, Wikipedia admins will be the judge of that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Never feed the trolls.
Could you answer my original question to you (not Col8lok8) "How is it what Jess wrote contentious?"
Put another way what about this statement can be change so you and I can both be happy with it? tahc chat 03:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi my good sir, I am confused as to what you thought was obstructive about my edit to David. Could you please leave details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosesinmyshoe (talkcontribs) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The edits on the Solomon page by user "Mosesinmyshoe" are actually correct as I am a leading researcher and up-and-coming historian on King Solomon. Please message me with any discrepencies. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yokestory (talkcontribs) 17:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure which or who is the puppetmaster, but both are blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


HI Tgeorgescu! Mainland China Namely The Occupied Area Of The ROC OR ROC Occupied Area, This Is Point Of ViewProphethu (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)ProphetHu

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Book of Daniel. See, I can do that, too! Your own disruptive behavior is making you look like an aggressive, vindictive editor whose agenda is to shut down any consensus that is disagreeable to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkpaton (talkcontribs) 16:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

April 20016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 are 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.

I note that you have already violated the three revert rule at Book of Daniel. (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Undoing policy violations does not count as 3RR violation. Otherwise who would be left to protect Wikipedia, if all defenders would get blocked before they can issue level 4 warnings? Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please note for the future that the only exceptions to the three revert rule are reverting vandalism; reverting copyright violations and reverting edits that add unsourced material to biographies of living persons. Reverting policy violations does not fall into any of those exceptions and consequently all such reverts count towards 3RR violations. (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Tgeorgescu reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: ). Thank you. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 17:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 are 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.

Information icon Please stop upholding a racist viewpoint on a major article. "Atlantic" Discuss on the relevant talk page.- Adasegogisdi (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

New Testament[edit]


As a courtesy to you, I wanted to let you know that I made another edit to the New Testament page basically by revising the one sentence and adding the words "many (if not most)." Even though I said earlier I was comfortable with the compromise, and I still appreciate it, I believe that the minor edit I made is more accurate and I hope this amendment to our compromise will be acceptable. However, if it is unacceptable to you, please feel free to discuss it on the talk page.

Thanks again,

Orange2016— Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2016 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


I wanted to let you know that I can live with your edit of the New Testament page. Thank you for coming to an acceptable compromise!

Orange2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orange2016 (talkcontribs) 02:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)