User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2021/June

Vandalism

I am a Reform Jew. Why would you accuse me of being a Nazi vandal? I feel greatly offended. I posted this to the administrator noticeboard. The outcome doesn't matter to me, but your actions were deplorable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.215.61 (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion is here at WP:ANI. --Yamla (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

On Hershel Shanks

@Tgeorgescu: I remember some time ago we had a discussion about Hershel Shanks. I checked about him and I admit that you are, at least in part, right about him: he was WAY too enthusiastic in trying to prove the Bible and often gave his support to artifacts that were later recognized to be forgeries (such as the James Ossuary, the Jehoash Inscription or the Ivory pomegranate). Not only that, he was often very sensationalistic and he even attacked scholars (despite not being one) when they had ideas that were different from his.

That doesn't mean he was without merit: in 2000 he correctly dismissed Shimon Gibson's idea that he had discovered John the Baptist's cave. But, in general, he lacked the healthy scepticism that all scholars should have before announcing "extraordinary discoveries" (Sagan standard). So I won't use him as a source, unless his views are confirmed by other scholars. -Karma1998 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Tgeorgescu/Archives/2021. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

In response to your communication to me, which is quoted below:

"Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Book of Ruth. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)"

Can you kindly provide specifics of where my "own point of view" is reflected in the edits I made? From my perspective, I added factual information to a description of a historical text that was inaccurately described as being written within a certain timeframe. The original text didn't even have a source provided for the singular claim it put forth, which I added in myself (I cited Encyclopedia Brittanica).

Explaining to readers the very real and enduring divergent points of view, and from whom those views come from (namely modern secular scholars vs Jewish and Christian religious scholars), contributes to the quality of the material on Wikipedia.org. As the original description read, that information actually violated the "neutral point of view" terms of Wikipedia.

In order to maintain the legitimacy of Wikipedia.org as a source of objective, factual information, I ask that you explain how I can better word my contribution in order to honor the neutral point of view expectations put forth by the sites terms.

I certainly hope there isn't an inherent bias against openly discussing the divergent viewpoints of history on a topic, such as the authorship of the Book of Ruth. Given your response to my contribution, it appears Wikipedia's terms, or your interpretation of said terms, are based in anti-Semitism, as your message presumes my contribution from a factual, scholarly Jewish perspective is a subjective violation.

I truly hope anti-Semitism is not tolerated on this platform, and I respectfully await your clarification for the sake of Wikipedia's readership and the integrity of the host.

Sincerely,

MakeWayForTheLion — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeWayForTheLion (talk • contribs)

@MakeWayForTheLion: Fake accusations of antisemitism won't get you very far. See WP:NOBIGOTS for details. Wikipedia tolerates neither antisemitism nor bigoted POV-pushing. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Tgeorgescu/Archives/2021. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

In response to your message:

"@MakeWayForTheLion: Fake accusations of antisemitism won't get you very far. See WP:NOBIGOTS for details. Wikipedia tolerates neither antisemitism nor bigoted POV-pushing. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)"

Your assumption of a "Fake accusation" is clearly indicative that you do indeed support anti-Semitic views, and the flippant tone with which you dismiss my entire message and respectful request for clarification further proves your concerning bias. I'm not sure what level of authority gives you the impression that you can speak with such disdain to users sincerely interested in providing more factual information on a historical topic, but the opinions and attitudes displayed on your user page do illustrate a vitriolic, subjective, and readily bigoted point of view.

It's also clear by your revision activity, which focuses a great deal on Hebrew and Jewish content, that there is a personal vendetta at play here. While I'm fully aware now that you pay no mind to the veracity of your personal opinions, rather your focus is to disparage and ridicule those within the Jewish tradition, I imagine there's a certain level of "clout" you've developed within the Wikipedia community, and further communications with a user who boldly displays such arrogance and hypocrisy is simply a waste of my time.

I'll consider Wikipedia.org as an unreliable and biased platform now, though I don't fool myself into thinking you actually care about my opinion, or the opinion of anyone but yourself.

Wishing you and your embittered psyche well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeWayForTheLion (talk • contribs)

Rejecting biblical literalism is by no means antisemitic. Just anti-fundamentalist. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack

Oh my George, you are truly obsessing over this issue. May the Wiki gods give you a high place among the stars for spinning your bitter wheels so unceasingly in their honor.

We get it, you hate the Bible and refuse to accept anything spiritual, because that would mean you're accountable to a power higher than yourself. As for me, I'll let you spiral freely, in the confidence of objective truth.

Blessings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeWayForTheLion (talk • contribs)

Indeffed. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI

[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

...and, on another front, [2]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

[3] From one angle, it's a little flattering, but back to AIV it was. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Greece

Is not in Armenia or Azerbaijan thus warning a user about the DS in those topic areas is irrelevant if they are editing about greek genocides.Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Impersonal attack - or rather, defence

I love this helpful edit. I would be clicking the like or smiley face or funny laughing face button on it but for some weird reason this Online Chatting System™ seems not to have one, chiz sa Molesworth. Nevertheless I have thanked and am thanking you as far as possible, and wish you a pleasant afternoon (adjusted for time zone as appropriate.) I do hope that all the people in your photo got home safely after their historical reenactment? With all good wishes DBaK (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Attempt at blackmailing me

You seem to attempt at blackmailing me. This goes against the wiki rules. This is not behavior that is tolerated on wiki. @Cautious: I advise you to drop the WP:STICK. Admins do not take homophobia lightly. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC) --Cautious (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cautious: What do you wait then? Report me at WP:ANI after you have read WP:BOOMERANG. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Calm down please. It was you, who baseless called me a homophobe and blackmailed me. It is you who did wrong and I am using step 1: discussion on your talk page. Hope you withdraw your claims. I hope you want to work with focus on wiki reliability. I give you a time. --Cautious (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cautious: I had already reported you at WP:ANI. See me there. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

What I can say? Your choice. --Cautious (talk) 22:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Please try not to

Please try not to attribute motives to other users such as this comment "Your POV-pushing smacks of homophobic denialism.". It is considered a personal attack. It is fine to comment on behavior and to disagree but do not make accusations like that. It adds more heat to an already heated situation.

I know you have been here a very long time and done a lot for the encyclopedia and I appreciate it but we have to keep things civil. Please note I have also left a strong warning for Cautious. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:17, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:21, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@HighInBC: I will refrain from calling Cautious homophobic. I hope they will also drop pushing POVs which led me to believe they were being homophobic. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Your use of YouTube videos

Please don’t use YouTube videos made by amateurs as a way to defend your argument in talk pages. Especially if those YouTube videos cite Wikipedia as a source. If you are planning on using YouTube videos it’s probably best to use documentaries or some videos made by scholars.

Look I understand you are on Wikipedia to present mainstream views from scholars but using videos like the one you presented at the article Yahweh makes your argument appear less reliable or convincing.CycoMa (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I did not seek to pass the video for a WP:RS. It was just basic information for newbies. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

It’s just not ideal video to send to people. Videos like are gonna male people assume you are a POV pusher.

It’s probably more ideal to present a video from a scholar.CycoMa (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)