User talk:tgeorgescu
Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit, how should they behave and how conflict gets mediated. Everybody is entitled to occasional mistakes, but persisting in mistakes will get you blocked from editing. Our wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. The decision to obey our rules is always personal, but it has enormous consequences for one's activity inside Wikipedia. I cannot decide for you, but I can tell you that it is wise to obey our rules. So, it's not that I like to see you blocked. I would like that you learn from your mistakes and become a productive editor. But if you are not up to the task, you will be blocked. I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. The key point about getting to read about our rules is changing your behavior. We want you to behave according to the rules of our encyclopedia, if you cannot behave you will be blocked or banned. I will report you to admins if it is clear to me that you don't want to comply with WP:RULES.
I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is. (Dutchies don't beat around the bush, but bluntly tell you what's wrong.)[1] I'm blunt but not mean. I could appear mean, but in fact I am only defending the norms and values of this website. I am very harsh on bigots, but reasonable and conciliatory with reasonable people. With people which present themselves as reasonable, I am much more conciliatory than other experienced users. If I can reasonably give you the benefit of doubt, I will do it, otherwise I have a low tolerance for bullshit. I have only become an anti-bigotry vigilante because of the unending attacks of fundamentalists upon our secular encyclopedia. I am very tolerant with those who don't deride science/history/our encyclopedia. According to prisoner's dilemma, The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness".
I'm usually acting as the first line of defense: just because you fooled me it doesn't mean your edits will be accepted by other established editors.
The question is not so much whether Wikipedians should be tolerant or intolerant, but: tolerant with what? And: intolerant with what?
I am neither humble (thinking that nothing can be really known, so everything goes) nor cocky (thinking that I know everything).
I don't hate editors as persons; I hate rule-breaking. I consider that any editor can change his/her mind/behavior at any moment. Few edit warriors do that, but that's another matter. As long as you know when to stop, you can get away with almost anything at Wikipedia. It's not the mistake which is a matter of being blocked or banned, but persisting in that mistake. Exceptions: outing, child grooming, and legal threats. When the community thinks that you made a mistake, accept the judgment of the community.
If you get criticism compliant with WP:RULES, accept the criticism and comply with it. If you have started a conflict, stop the conflict and offer your excuses for it. If you seek to avoid blocks or topic bans through WP:SOCKS you will get banned from Wikipedia. We are tolerant, but not retarded.
I'm not absurd: if you give me WP:RS showing that you're right, I will write myself from your POV. Seriously, the deal is this: give me sources that you advocate a major academic POV and I will write from this POV. The article masturbation is replete with WP:RS/AC claims precisely because I listened to critics of the article. I mean: I did not oblige their wish to adulterate the medical consensus, but I have provided rock-solid sources for the medical consensus. That had nothing to do with me being mean or obstinate, but mainstream science simply wasn't on their side (and still isn't). Since I'm not in charge of the scientific consensus, they were barking at the wrong tree. I'm not a scientist; I have nothing to add to or subtract from mainstream science. I render it for what it is. So, even assuming I was prejudiced against their POV (since it does sounds like an outlier), there was no need of doctoring the medical consensus. They felt treated like outcasts, but even if I wished, I could not offer them a place at the table of mainstream science. There are many people who think they will change mainstream science through editing Wikipedia—but that is a completely wrong approach: Wikipedia is subservient to mainstream science, mainstream science isn't subservient to Wikipedia. What those people really asked is playing fast and loose with the facts of mainstream science. We cannot do that.
Wikipedia has a purpose, it has norms and values; those who violate these get blocked or banned. I am prepared to explain you these norms and values, otherwise to those that do not heed these I believe that giving the cat enough rope it will hang itself. But we're not a clique: everyone who earnestly obeys our WP:RULES may join us. (Yes, yes, Wikipedia has to have rules; we cannot run such a website without rules.)
If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Imho, using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience is worse than using it to promote criminal behavior (seen that definitions of what is a crime largely depend upon the country). For my contributions to Wikipedia I could get the death penalty in several countries (e.g. in North Korea for liberal-bourgeois propaganda, in Iran and Saudi Arabia for blasphemy, sorcery and LGBT-friendly propaganda—what Wikipedia sees as mainstream science, they see as propaganda; in totalitarian countries ideology trumps reality).
If you are here to complain about my edits in respect to porn addiction: there is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. None of that has anything to do with my own person, does it? WP:ACTIVISTS could not figure out if I am pro-porn or anti-porn, so they accused me of being both. Same applies to being pro-Christian and anti-Christian: some have accused me of being outright Antichristic, while others have accused me of writing ads for born-again Christians.
The idea that the Bible was copied 100% exactly, that it lacks any mistake and any contradiction, that it has not been severely contradicted by mainstream archaeology is bigotry, not Christianity. The definition of Christianity isn't "the Bible is without error".
In the long term, reasoned argument and good quality sources works, hysterical accusations of bias and malfeasance simply get you shown the door.[2]
— Guy Chapman
Remember: truth is my weapon and if you misbehave, I will use it against you. If you want to accuse me of something nasty, present evidence or shut up forever. I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth. I like wiki-persecuting bigots, pseudoscientists and quacks. Do you think I'm mean? The watchdog must bite. That means that I'm not a fool, and I will report to admins the violations of our WP:RULES. It also means that I don't shy away from using mainstream scientific/scholarly works against cults, quacks, and pseudoscientists. It does not mean I violate your right to believe what you please. But here at Wikipedia you have to behave according to our own WP:RULES.
Blaming me for the fact that Wikipedia has rules that get enforced is deeply idiotic. I did not ban your pet theology from Wikipedia. I lack the power to do so. It is simply so that pushing fringe POVs is not acceptable to this encyclopedia.
The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.
Having your POV not touted by Britannica is not a violation of human rights.
Having your POV not touted by Larousse is not a violation of human rights.
Having your POV not touted by Wikipedia is not a violation of human rights. Wikipedia does not violate your right to believe what you please, it just does not assume by default that you're right.
If your edit gets deleted because the Ivy League finds it is rubbish, it is not discrimination, and it is nothing personal.
Wikipedia is crowdsourced, while Britannica and Larousse aren't. That's the only difference. For the rest all three have the same ideals and values.
You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Why the Dutch always say what they mean – BBC REEL on YouTube
- ^ Chapman, Guy (1 July 2015). "Homeopaths to Jimmy Wales: please rewrite reality to make us not wrong". Guy Chapman's Blahg. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2021.
Reverting edit on cupping therapy
[edit]Hi tgeorgescu, thanks for sharing the introduction to controversial topics on my talk page. I’ve read it carefully, but I’m not sure I understand how it justifies reverting my edit. As far as I can tell, no specific rationale for the reversion was provided.
Cupping therapy is a treatment that has been practiced in many cultures for millennia. While many of the modern arguments for its efficacy are rooted in pseudoscience, it seems semantically inaccurate to call the technique itself a pseudoscience. Pseudoscience usually refers to systems of thought (e.g., astrology, homeopathy, phrenology), not to individual treatments or procedures. By analogy, cauterization is not “science” in itself, even though its underlying rationale is scientifically validated — it is simply a medical technique.
My intention was not to substantively change the article’s meaning but to make a copy edit for accuracy and clarity. I don’t see how this contradicts Wikipedia’s rules or guidelines on controversial topics, so I’d appreciate your help in understanding the reasoning behind the reversion and how the relevant policies apply here.
Thanks, Chagropango (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Chagropango: I did not revert your edit. When there is no overarching WP:PAG reason, edits have to abide by WP:CONSENSUS. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Request for opinion at Talk:Fall of man
[edit]Hey, I'm asking a few editors who know a lot better than me to offer any opinion they have to the move request I initiated at Talk:Fall of man § Requested move 24 August 2025. Thanks in advance! Remsense 🌈 论 20:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- @Remsense: "Fall of man" sounds more recognizable, but in the end I have no opinion about renaming the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. Remsense 🌈 论 20:53, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Your love for scholarship
[edit]I read your userpage. It's thought provoking. One of my main interests the past few years has been reducing the reliance on primary sources in the Jehovah's Witness topic area. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses used to cite the group's own publications 130 times. But there's only so much I can do by myself and it's a topic that's very personally draining for me at times given my upbringing. I take substantial breaks. Anyways, I think it'd be nice to have more people who were interested in improving this topic area. You probably have a lot on your plate, but if you're ever bored, a lot of articles in Category: Jehovah's Witnesses need scholarly attention. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- Hi, Clovermoss, I have almost no knowledge of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I prefer not to write about subjects I'm not familiar with. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if you ever change your mind, George Chryssides' A New Introduction is pretty good. I've also tried to make the main JW article fairly comprehensive as I hope to take it through FAC eventually, so that could be a decent starting point as well. But I understand if you're not interested in getting more familiar with the subject. Any chance you know anyone who might? The topic area has had dramatically reduced activity since ~2010 and I hate the endless to-do list in my head. 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: I conceive my edits top-down. That is, I have to know first what the mainstream academic view is, and I seek sources accordingly. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, there's not much in the world of scholarship outside of blood transfusions, legal cases, and the Holocaust. Therefore the "mainstream academic view" is pretty much anyone who writes about the JWs academically. That's the aforementioned Chrysiddes, James Penton, and Zoe Knox. Knox actually wrote something about the lack of scholarship in the area [1]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- @Clovermoss: I conceive my edits top-down. That is, I have to know first what the mainstream academic view is, and I seek sources accordingly. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
- Well, if you ever change your mind, George Chryssides' A New Introduction is pretty good. I've also tried to make the main JW article fairly comprehensive as I hope to take it through FAC eventually, so that could be a decent starting point as well. But I understand if you're not interested in getting more familiar with the subject. Any chance you know anyone who might? The topic area has had dramatically reduced activity since ~2010 and I hate the endless to-do list in my head. 😅 Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I’d like to understand and correct thanks
[edit]Hello. Can u please let me know why you deleted the edit I made to The Bible Code. A new variation was approved by the United States patent office and i meant to inform the public. LectraMae (talk) 21:55, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- @LectraMae: Original research performed upon WP:PRIMARY sources is dissuaded. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. Can you further please explain how what I did falls under this category you posted a link for in your response for Original Research. I had a link for the United States Patent and Trademark office with the patent number for the approved published patent. Do u mean they are not a reliable source?
- The Original research link states…
- Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, 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.
- Also the article title is The Bible Code. Code is defined as follows in the Merriam-Webster dictionary…
- code
- 1 of 2
- noun
- ˈkōd
- plural codes
- Synonyms of code
- 1
- a systematic statement of a body of law
- especially : one given statutory force
- 2
- a system of principles or rules
- 3
- a
- a system of signals or symbols for communication
- b
- a system of symbols (such as letters or numbers) used to represent assigned and often secret meanings
- c
- coded language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly
- Therefore the U.S. Patented code2GOD applies to this article as it is simply a variation of The Bible code. LectraMae (talk) 04:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
- @LectraMae: Patent descriptions from the Patent Office are primary sources. Wikipedia is generally based upon WP:SECONDARY sources. You may ask further at the WP:TEAHOUSE. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)
Question
[edit]It can give someone the question on his mind what you you really have to source about the circumstance that neither is noradrenalin making you high nor addictive and the decision to take this substance for therapie is safer, you can allways change and yes, your revert is still legit, but wikipedia claims some rudimentary niveau and thus goes with the consideration, wether your revert is provokative, and yes, I will end this text with being provokative to you but yes, stimulant medication is making you very high, I heard some rumors about this in dome universaties, clubraves and the Japanese country 2001:9E8:90BE:400:39C2:C260:8C93:4697 (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
but though, sweet in some ways, you, as one of the first wiki*s ever, somehow one of the circelmasters represent my date of birth 22.9.97 (I hope it is clear, that I just try to make jokes. and that I am a childish therefore on some ways🤗) Have a nice day🤗 2001:9E8:90BE:400:39C2:C260:8C93:4697 (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)
- You were ventilating your personal opinions, that's not done around here. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 27 September 2025 (UTC)