User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/January

less than neutral?

How Controversial or Uncontroversial is Abiogenesis is not for you to decide... If you truly want to have a neutral point of view, the only fact you can include is that as 2019 some hypotheses are still under experimental evaluation. You must refrain from stating "is uncontroversial among scientist" because of course, to take the hypotheses seriously, at least for some months, researchers must assume it is possible (it is not assumed based on conclusion, it is assumed based on the need to entertain the ideas and experiments!); Furthermore, those who have a controversy with it might not even care to state it formally IF EVERYTHING IS JUST HYPOTHESIS AS OF 2019... That's why I will change the part (again), and if you revert it back, YOU are the one not being neutral, since you are trying to convince everyone that that "Abiogenesis surely occurred, science knows for sure, we are just dealing with the minor detail of "HOW IT IS POSSIBLE AND HOW IT OCCURRED?  !" P.S. WIKIPEDIA- YOU DON't OWN IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 11:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: For scientific matters WP:NPOV means WP:SPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

How Controversial or Uncontroversial is Abiogenesis is not for you to decide... The notion that "one should stick a science subject to science" NEVER includes the negation of lack of knowledge or lack of consensus. One can simply state that Science has no answer yet, instead of stating "is uncontroversial but there is no model", which implies a bias toward unproved, unverified hypothesis, and the reader does get the impression that every scientist must accept it or it would be wrong (when that is not the case)... If you truly want to have a neutral point of view, the only fact you can include is that as 2019 some hypotheses are still under experimental evaluation. You must refrain from stating "is uncontroversial among scientist" because of course, to take the hypotheses seriously, at least for some months, researchers must assume it is possible (it is not assumed based on conclusion, it is assumed based on the need to entertain the ideas and experiments!); Furthermore, those who have a controversy with it might not even care to state it formally IF EVERYTHING IS JUST HYPOTHESIS AS OF 2019... You are eager to state the ' go to the talk" page, and I have been Here, I have twice indicated you why you should avoid stating how controversial or uncontroversial Abiogenesis is, and I state what you know is true (no real Abiogenesis model yet, and it must be assumed if someone wants to entertain the idea, which is not the same believing it based n previous clear experimental evidence with formidable data) so is all ideas, unverified, who knows what will be valid from them). Yet you insist in putting "Is uncontroversial"... Tell me how can I show the community I think this article makes a bias mistake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 11:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: We're heavily biased for mainstream science, this is not a fault or a WP:NPOV violation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Romania

Buna seara,

Am modificat putin informatia nou adaugata. Nu am dorit sa ascund nimic, ci am considerat continutul nou adaugat "mockery" si prost documentat. De aceea am corectat si am spus "many of them suffered during Holocaust" in loc de "most of whom were murdered during the Holocaust". Nu stergeam daca adauga un continut LA RELIGIE in care scrie numarul vechi si actual de evrei (iudei). Daca el a dorit sa aminteasca holocaustul, am lasat totusi asa dar am modificat putin. S-a amintit holocaustul in alte parti pe aceeasi pagina. Aici era vorba strict de religie.

Cristina

Am mutat totusi link-ul lui la Regimul Antonescu si numarul evreilor era deja precizat la religie (am lasat si parte din continutul lui, punandu-l in paranteza; adica exact numarul din anii '30).

Cristina

@Cristina neagu: Ok, doar v-am informat, nu erau acuzatii. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Mersi frumos, domnu' Georgescu! Cristina

So blatantly biased and bigoted is Wikipedia?

This phrase shows up REPEATEDLY in so many articles featuring biblical historical, and ancient references it's too many to cite. Here is the phrase:

″the fact—now accepted by most archaeologists"

If sources were then provided, wonderful. For then I could read up and become enlightened. However, sources are not provided in almost all accounts, which leads me to believe that the editor is biased, and revisionist, without factual information other than a modernist viewpoint or opinion. Citing a speaker or writer on a topic does not prove or disprove anything. That speaker or writer cited must have given factual proof. I'm not trying to pick a fight. Really truly. I just love to learn and grow. So if we make statements such as "now accepted by...such and such experts" well then, by golly, show me where they have proven such! Thank you so much. May your day be filled with goodness. Jlafond (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jlafond: Go read WP:Assume good faith until you understand what's wrong with your message. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(( I don't know this system so we'll, forgive me. Hoping I am doing this correctly. But I noticed in the Massacre of Holy Innocents article that statement "most scholars now agree..." But no citations were then provided. I provided some citations to the contrary, in fact three. I also corrected a simple typographical error. In any case, if one person can write as if an authority without providing proofs, either common or scholarly, then how can anything be held as true on Wikipedia? The casual reader then has not the option to seek truth and discover deeper understanding of the material at hand? But is only subject to the bias of the most recent editor, or even the administrator editor? Your point of view or my point of view has little to do with it. But I simply provided an historical perspective and factual quotes. Sigh. Oh well. That means little I guess if you have an agenda of misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlafond (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the body of the article. The section "History and theology" does have sources for statements that would best be summarized "Most modern biographers of Herod, and probably a majority of biblical scholars, dismiss Matthew's story as an invention." Ian.thomson (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jlafond: Wikipedia is heavily biased for whatever they mostly teach for a fact from Ivy Plus to US state universities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of Neutrality

I now present to you a quote from a book that undergraduate students use. Is a book on Biochemistry...

"Keep in mind, however, that there are valid scientific objections to this scenario as well as to the several others that have been seriously entertained so that we are far from certain as to how life arose." [D & J Voet, "Biochemistry", John Wiley and Sons: New York, p:21 1995]

Can you realize that to include that sentence "Although the occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, there is no single, generally accepted model for the origin of life, and this article presents several principles and hypotheses for how abiogenesis could have occurred" is actually a lack of neutrality? It is biased, it begins with the conclusion and ignores the how that proves that conclusion. No need to put God, just to accept that "we don't know yet"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 12:10, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: See Talk:Abiogenesis, Q3: But isn't abiogenesis unproven? and Q4: Abiogenesis is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Wow! based on Q#3 & Q #$ on your talk page, you have framed the discussion in such a biased and horrendously unfair way, that the only thing you call scientific evidence consistent with an origin of life out of abiotic conditions is the mere fact that some scientist are actually elaborating experiment to figure if that hypothesis is true or not!. Clearly, you cannot give the community of readers a citation of experiment(s) that turns the hypotheses into a Theory, not even give the readers a definitive model, yet you state (horrendous wrong) in that "scientific evidence is consistent with and supports an origin of life out of abiotic conditions. No chemical, biological or physical law has been discovered that would prevent life from emerging"... Of course not, because we have never seen life emerging from non-life, ever! WE don't have to "prevent it"! It seems to do that without our help! The experiment of Pasteur, the one that destroyed the idea of Spontaneous generation, proved that (at least life as ewe know it) must come from life! It doesn't come from non-life! So, the rational burden of proof is NOT on "proving supernatural" (which unfortunately, you are so limited in imagining options, typical,that for you is only either a Supremely anthropological god or a big chunk of materialistic from nada); Burden is not such that we must state we have to take tentative that life came from non-living process, no... Abiogenesis scientists must provide conclusive and integrated evidence that Abiogenesis can ocurr, that life may somet6ime emerge out of non-life, and if not, then the RATIONAL conclusion IS THAT WE DO NOT KNOW AND CAM BE CEWRTAIN< THUS CONTROVERSY IS ACEPTABLE, is all FAITH as RELIGIOUS belief... And the idea of making the Scientific Method is to belief things based NOT JUST ON FAITH! The neutral (and fair) thing to do and to communicate, based on the truth, is to ACKNOWLEDGE SCIENCE (OUR) IGNORANCE ON THE TOPIC! There is great fault in being biased toward an inconclusive and difficult to know science: Science was meant to oppose all those belief that were imposed to us, by any form of authority that demanded a lack of reasoning, whether ecclesiastical or intellectual. Trying to say "we are biased toward science, and that's ok" is to do what religion did in the first place, and to say "but we are ok to do it"... I find it incredible how some cannot stick to a simple truth and a simple rational option, the one that says: WE DON'T KNOW... Why you have to take it to a fan club of other people without certainty and deceive the people into thinking the truth is that which the fan club voted for, in spite their ignorance? Anyone who sponsors those Q & A in that Talk section are clearly not people capable of accepting the middle "Nobody knows" when is real,perhaps because some anti-religious feeling, but the why is not justification, and for that, you, Tgeorgescu, and anybody that sponsored such biased framework, are not qualified for being editors on a public encyclopedia, and don't deserve to be in charge of such editorial vigilance. Do tell me how do I stick that mark that states that the position of this article is biased, if you are so "by-the-law-an-rights"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: We aren't WP:SOAPBOX for pushing your WP:FRINGE POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu : My "fringe theory" (as you call it) is that NOBODY knows how life began, so Abiogenesis doesn't need to be taken as fact... Prove me wrong today, Tgeorgescu... And if you can't , change the whole thing right know and state " I was wrong,"... Come on... Tgeorgescu, show me how "fringe" is my theory that NO one mind in January 9 2019 had found a conclusion so outstanding that Abiogenesis is as good as Theory as Evolution is... (And, people who can read this, he, Tgeorgescu, privately/intimately knows I am right in that, nobody knows, but his faith in the church of science cannot allow him to publicly accept that no one knows that today). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: We have only two options: abiogenesis on Planet Earth or abiogenesis on another planet; science has not the option by miracle. Quoting Pasteur as authority upon abiogenesis is an old canard which shows that you know nothing of the subject you dare to discuss. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: 1) Where is that evidence that show me that Abiogenesis is now a Theory, with evidence as valid, a Theory as Evolution is? (see none of that in your answer; Remember, my "fringe theory", as you called it, is that Nobody knows how life came to exist, and that any form of abiogenesis, in this or anywhere else, lack enough scientific evidence yet, to the point is not yet a Theory, so controversies about them might arise even in Scientific terms (are you so naive to think NO single scientist believe in God?)... Show me wrong, come on, show me the abiogenesis great conclusive evidence, but do it today, be cause that article is being read today, and if you don't show it, people are being played with biased remarks! # 2) Pasteur an "authority on the subject?" Did you learn misinterpretation in College? Or where you born with that ability to lose the point so easily? Pasteur an authority? Can you show me when I said Pasteur was an authority on Abiogenesis? You missed the point, again... Here is the point: Current cell theory have huge evidence that life as we know it comes ONLY from life (And the experiment of spontaneous generation made by Pasteur was a part of the experiments that aided in establishing the Theory) Any Abiogenesis researcher cannot forget that Cell Theory is a real Theory (is not an hypothesis, like Abiogenesis), and what it states cannot be ignored for the sake of allowing speculation or conjectures of Abiogenesis... IT is hard to state abiogenesis is so rational while ignoring CURRENT CELL THEORY. Tell me, why Oparin's coacervates are held as NOT proof of proto-cells? Why don't you tell me why we haven't reached the point where we make a synthetic cell, out of a lab, from no life whatsoever?... You love it when imagination do the rest, don't you? "RNA replicase replicated itself"! (But only after that Replicase had 150 nucleotides pre-added by the hand of a researcher". "WE made Cytosine!" (WE had too add some phosphorylated parts, to activate it, but is k, is possible"... Pre-RNA world? Wait wait, RNA seems now like not enough to be the first? I though you guys were celebrating the success of RNA world in explaining abiogenesis , what happened?" Did you guys celebrated the Urey-Miller experiment? (to then note is more complicated than that? Bummer, sorry to hear that). Every little research you call evidence on favor of abiogenesis has suffered enough objections (made by other "mainstream scientist") that now they are really limited in convincing powers! I told you, there is more honor in saying the truth that WE DON'T know... Hey, if you want fantasies that are not supernatural in origin, I can help you with that, is not just supernatural god vs. lucky abiogenesis, you know? (think information processing in physical systems, and soon you'll see more options for speculations, speculations like "God" or "abiogenesis")... But you'll miss the point, and you do that often so... Stay with me: No one knows how life came to exist and it is the right thing to state that in a public encyclopedia... Is it too much to ask that you accept that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: are you so naive to think NO single scientist believe in God? is another creationist canard. See [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: That's it? No answer to any f the abigenesis own issues? & No single reference to that evidence that represents the official moving into "Real Theory" territory, not just "hypothesis" ? Does any of my "creationist canards" imply that I'm wrong when I state that NOBODY knows how life came to be, and that the neutral way is to state that, as it is, in the article? I wonder why I ask it... The truth is that, no, anything you call a " a creationist"canard from me doesn't make me wrong when I state that no one knows how life came to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: You're a WP:FRINGE POV-pusher and Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPBOX for you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:58, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You couldn't answer me with a proper reference, or solid argument on my questions... What make you think you can classify me with your (very limited)"Wikicodes" and still be right? You can't. What you are is someone who lacks neutrality, and this was always about neutrality for an encyclopedia. By the way since you state many things on different places (but never answer me one of my questions with solid argument) allow me to state to you: Wikipedia is about being able to modify articles in the best interest of the truth and the public. Nothing here that I write is mere socialization, what is written here stems from a duty to modify an article, as you are bias and clearly lack neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 17:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@MLearry: We're not interested into what you have to say, see Arkell vs Pressdram. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Really? Then why you keep replying (without offering a valid argument, but replying with false accusations and wrong assump[tions)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by MLearry (talk • contribs) 17:38, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page, if you don't cease admins will make sure that you cease. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu - How for the love of God, can you claim what you posted under 'the origins of life" is IN ANY WAY 'NEUTRAL'? Your absolute BIAS on the "origins of life' page are pathetic. You claim 'neutrality' and that you will remove posts that aren't. You lie. Clearly, your definition of 'neutrality' means 'must believe in evolutionism' and in the scientific impossibility that everything came from nothing. The information you have posted is completely biased and must be your own opinion for you to be THAT against anything that disagrees with your particular world view. I challenge you. Show me ANY observable evidence (which is the scientific method) for darwinian evolution, one kind changing to another. Your published article is most DEFINITELY NOT neutral.

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

- Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?" Paleobiology, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p. 127

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

- Ronald R. West, PhD (paleoecology and geology) (Assistant Professor of Paleobiology at Kansas State University), "Paleoecology and uniformitarianism". Compass, vol. 45, May 1968, p. 216

"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that 'a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein'."

- Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University), as quoted in "Hoyle on Evolution". Nature, vol. 294, 12 Nov. 1981, p. 105

I guess these accredited, recognized, published, academic Phd's are not 'neutral' enough for you?

But, it's true, Wikipedia is highly biased for mainstream science, see WP:ABIAS. We are proud, unapologetic about such bias. This is who we are. "This is Sparta!" Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu - Good point, why listen to facts and truth when you have blind faith? p.s. In the end, even the spartans were conquered :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.230.46 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This is not a research institute, this is an encyclopedia. We do not establish WP:THETRUTH but simply parrot what scientists tell us. If you don't like doing this, you're in the wrong place! Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu - Well why didnt you say so!, Why don't you parrot some of the scientists I listed above? They aren't creationists. Read their credentials. They are right up your alley! I can parrot you all the science you need:

https://www.icr.org/article/ninety-five-percent-of-human-genome-cant-evolve

https://www.icr.org/article/nebular-hypothesis-doesnt-hold-together

https://www.icr.org/article/dinosaurs-buried-more-rapidly-than-thought

Those ought to get you started.... God bless!

ICR is in the business of lying for Jesus. Reasonable Christians suspect that it was devised as a ploy in order to make Christianity look ridiculous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHA, and evolution was invented to make guys like you look stupid...

Creationists lost that dispute more than 150 years ago, source on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just a comment about the Pasteur thing that doesn't appear to have been addressed (unless I missed it). Re: "The experiment of Pasteur, the one that destroyed the idea of Spontaneous generation, proved that (at least life as ewe know it) must come from life!" Pasteur's experiment does not say anything about abiogenesis as the origin of life on Earth. All it demonstrated is that complex organisms (like bacteria etc) do not appear directly by abiogenesis. But nobody is suggesting (and our article certainly doesn't suggest) that complex organisms form directly by abiogenesis. No, they evolved over millions of years from things that were much simpler, and Pasteur's short experiment couldn't possible say anything about that. Anyway, I'm not taking part in the argument, just trying to correct a misunderstanding. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Jesus loves you!

John1427 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Jesus loves you

Hey, I just want to let you know Jesus loves you, but I don't agree with anything you said. The Wikipedia policies are flawed and flexible, as shown in the five pillars. And just because one Christian says one thing about following hard on the policies, doesn't mean I do either.

Highbrow isn't very persuasive to commonfolk, whom 95% of the world belong to, so the academia doesn't sway me either. I forgive you. John1427 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@John1427: WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. And certainly WP:NOTTHEOCRACY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Head Honcho

Dear Tgeorgescu, What are the requirements and qualifications for becoming a head honcho on Wikipedia? Having some knowledge of human behavior I suspect there are likely male individuals who attempt to become head honchos here because they desire personal glory and are control freaks. I would like to know your thoughts about this intriguing puzzle. Have there been complaints about such screwballs? Disciplinary action taken? In what form? Often? Please reply soon, Miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: One cannot run such website without enforcing WP:RULES. Admins are not bosses over content, but over behavior, see WP:BURO. But, yes, there are policies and content guidelines which have to be obeyed by every editor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Dear Tgeorgescu, Thank you for your quick, kind and very informative reply. Miistermagico (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)