User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2021/September

Muhammad and the Bible

If you'd like to keep an eye on the recent edits as well it couldn't hurt. I don't know that this is a sock but it's possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Neronian persecution

I would like to ask your opinion about the Neronian persecution. As you probably know, some scholars (Moss, 2013; Shaw, 2015) have cast doubt on the historicity of such persecution; still, most scholars consider it to have happened (Stark, 2011; Hurtado, 2016; Bauckham, 2017; Ehrman, 2018; Strauss, 2019). Ehrman, in particular, explains that the persecution did indeed take place, but was a rather isolated event, happened only in Rome and was mainly due to the need of Nero to find a scapegoat for the Great Fire on Rome; this view, in my idea, is the most reasonable. What is your opinion on the matter?--Karma1998 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Karma1998: Use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: OK, thanks.--Karma1998 (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Userpage uncivil

Your user page comes off as uncivil and is honestly a bit too long. Although it has improved a bit since the last time I saw I do think you need fix it up a bit.CycoMa (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Some of those lines are a replies to Facebook groups which accuse me of being a rat, traitor of my country, and agent of the New World Order. Several Facebook users stated I did not get beaten enough to behave properly (manganello ed olio di ricino). I honestly believe that accusing someone of being an agent of the New World Order is paranoid delirium, and if it comes down to a libel case, I think the judge will agree with me (verity defense, we call that in Romania, i.e. truth is an absolute defense to libel claims). tgeorgescu (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu also I do want to say this about that deletion discussion I had with you. I don’t disagree with you when it comes to religious POV pushing. POV pushers are honestly a problem, I mean I edit sex and gender topics. You have POV pushers there all the time. It’s if there is gonna be an essay regarding religious POV pushing it should be a little more welcoming.CycoMa (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I tried to write one and I failed. I think it is time that somebody else does it. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: maybe after when I’m done with these 22 drafts I’ll write one myself. And maybe you and Karma can help me make it.CycoMa (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: AFAIK Karma has retired. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Usenet

You wrote on my talk page, "If you want to know why Usenet is not a proper channel for distributing child pornography, my comments are to the point. Of course, once you know the facts, you may search for sources." I didn't ask why Usenet is not a "proper channel" for distributing pornography. I don't really care. Your comments on the article talk page are irrelevant, they make no statement of changes to the article that will improve it. The article talk page is not for general commentary on the subject matter. If you have a specific suggestion pertaining to article improvement, then state it. Otherwise, you are posting your comments in the wrong place. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I was trying to make something clear to other editors. It does not have to be me who finds the sources, it's a collective task. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

You said nothing on the article talk page about finding sources, or asking other editors to look for sources. You merely posted your opinions on why it's bad to get/post child porn on usenet. Dangling opinions aren't helpful. State what you are asking other editors to do, or state what you intend to do. Otherwise, you're just writing personal commentary. Wikipedia is not a blog. Anastrophe (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: You were too fast to revert my edits. Generally I draw the proper conclusions, but it does take time.

At WP:EDITS I see my own username, I don't see yours. So a little WP:AGF would be all right. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was going to be charitable, but now you're basically making a claim that because I have fewer edits than you, my decision to follow the rules here is misplaced. That's not how it works. I have not failed to assume good faith; I reverted your edits in good faith. I have engaged in good faith here. Implying that I'm not assuming good faith is...wait for it...not good faith. So please, just follow the rules, don't imply that your editing is more important/relevant than mine, and we can end the discussion here. Anastrophe (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Sometimes I think slower (ruminate), and edit in several pieces. A good advice before reverting someone's edits would be to look at their profile and evaluate whether they are a trusted editor or just a random troll. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not obligated to do a 'background check' on a user before reverting incompletely formed commentary from an article talk page. I appreciate - genuinely - the characteristic of thinking slower and ruminating as one forms one's thoughts. This might have been avoided if the first thing you posted was what your ultimate goal was - finding sources. I'm happy to assist in doing so. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Here's an amusing little factoid for you. Back in the mid-1990's, when I was sysadmin at a small, regional ISP, I built and ran a USENET 'transit' server, HSNX.WCO.COM (long gone now), that was in the top 100 globally in the speed with which new articles were propagated to other usenet servers around the world. Anastrophe (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Well, yes, WP:SOURCES will be much appreciated. But it is too difficult for me to find sources about this issue. Generally speaking, I am pretty good at identifying sources.

I did research this issue some years ago, see https://www.academia.edu/225981/A_Research_of_Decadence_How_Child_Pornography_Testifies_that_We_Live_in_a_Decadent_World tgeorgescu (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:Usenet are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you for working to fend off the latest in a long line of Bible literalists over at Belshazzar, as well as your tireless defense of keeping this article aligned to what academics believe over the last few years. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for taking up the discussion. I feel like I've said everything I can but it doesn't seem like anything was getting through. The messages left by the IP feel less and less intelligible, so I also applaud you for keeping your cool and continuing to be reasonable. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)