User talk:tgeorgescu - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MakeWayForTheLion (talk | contribs) at 19:09, 28 May 2021 (→You've got mail: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:09, 28 May 2021 by MakeWayForTheLion (talk | contribs) (→You've got mail: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages, 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.) 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.

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 Misplaced Pages. It's not the mistake which is a matter of being blocked or banned, but persisting in that mistake. Exceptions: outing 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages I could get the death penalty in several countries (e.g. in North Korea for bourgeois propaganda, in Iran and Saudi Arabia for blasphemy, sorcery and LGBT-friendly propaganda—what Misplaced Pages 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 my 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.
— 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.

References

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.

For the account owner

Sorry but would you mind joining my group where we talk about god and how we all should obey his word. I don't know the whole Bible but I see you do so thanks and I hope you reply and see this message bye Jokerkick (talk) 15:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

And anyone is welcome to join Jokerkick (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

My take is that God does not talk to people (never did). My God isn't anthropopathic. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The unfailing rightness of the customer (etc)

I was surprised but happy to see my words in Romanian company.

Well, that somewhat irritated comment of mine was made when I was "up to my ears" in more or less obviously paid-for, more or less discreet, promotional drafts. (A minority of which were for people of some apparent notability: why did they feel a need to stoop and pay money?) Perhaps I was a little too candid.

I wonder if ro:Misplaced Pages has as high a percentage of promotional material as en:Misplaced Pages has. I hope not. -- Hoary (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: Actually, at en.wiki we have a clear system for removing promotional edits, since many editors agree upon what constitutes POV-pushing. Sometimes I feel that at ro.wiki I am a team of only one member who fights against certain sorts of POV-pushing. It certainly helps when there are more editors who agree upon what are legitimate edits and what aren't so. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

And to be fair, COI edits that are arguably promotional can (rarely) be very worthwhile. I recently moved this to article space; its primary author clearly announces a COI yet is an asset to WP. The article about our sole (as of now) Ecuadorian demographer is the product of a COI; perhaps it's still rather over-egged but I like it a lot. Usually, though, COI articles are desperate collections of clutches at indicators of minor significance. -- Hoary (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Criticism on Abiogeneses

It seems that you do not seek German. On which basis did you criticise that reference in the Abiogenese article if you are not able to read it. Joe Sloppy (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me to discuss the issue which came up in the article about abiogenesis. At which point do you see pseudoscience or fringe science in the publication that I cited? Joe Joe Sloppy (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@Joe Sloppy: Denialism, see Talk:Abiogenesis/FAQ. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

"Q4: Abiogenesis is controversial, so why won't you teach the controversy?

A4: Abiogenesis is not controversial according to the reliable, published sources within the scientific community. Abiogenesis is, at best, only controversial in social areas like politics and religion. "

--> What would you do if there are novel, reliable, published sources within the scientific community on that topic? The source I cited is a scientific publication from a mainstream publisher. To my understanding excatly the contribution Misplaced Pages would like to cover. Its not about politics or religion as you might worry. I would recommend to have a look into the original source before you make a comment or exclude a contribution. Joe

@Joe Sloppy: So? He posits no viable alternative to abiogenesis. Intelligent design is not a scientific hypothesis, it is pseudoscience. And nobody knows what the hypothesis of ID is, Phillip E. Johnson died without knowing it, since nobody took care to formulate ID as a cogent hypothesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Where did I or the author of the source I am quoting say anything about Intelligent Design?? The author I am quoting is concerned with a critical evaluation of the hypotheses on abiogenesis. But not to prove Intelligent Design but to improve the theories of abiogenesis and to enable progress! Here is the translation of a quote from the author in the preface of the book that is the subject of the discussion:

"If the criticism of the interpretation of results of the bottom-up approach expressed in many places should stimulate one or the other reader to new experiments, then this book has achieved its purpose. In any case, it was not the author's intention to please the reader with a new hypothesis or even pseudo-religion on the origin of life.

Hans R. Kricheldorf"

As I said many times in the discussion. Have a look at the source before you criticise something.

@Joe Sloppy: He's rehashing the idea that we don't know how it happened, point which I had already granted. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Violence in the Bible: Mt 10:34

Hello, I'm Helmut.

You left a note that my editing in the article, The Bible and violence was reverted because of lack of sources.

Frankly, I thought that referring to "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves" and the following passages, all within the context of the verse, would be enough as a source that the context of Mt 10:34 is on persecution of Christians. The source is the text in Matthew!

Quoted from Bible server and highlighting some clauses:

16 “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. 17 Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. 18 On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. 19 But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, 20 for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes. 24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household! 26 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. 28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. 30 And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. 32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law— 36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’ 37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

--Helmut w.k. (talk) 18:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Helmut w.k.: The Bible is not WP:RS, see WP:RSPSCRIPTURE. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

You and Karma1998

Can you explain why I keep seeing you mention him in noticeboards and why do I keep seeing you too go at teach other? I have seen discussions like ].

Can you explain yourself a little bit?

Me personally I don’t really research into biblical archeology or biblical scholarship so I honestly don’t know much about the topic and honestly I am a little bit neutral on this.

But I noticed you said something in one board, right here. “ (that it is clear that the Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy) has really existed; it might be a majority view,” I don’t know if I misread what you said but, it appears you are aware the view that the United monarchy may have existed is a mainstream view. Must I remind you here on Misplaced Pages we follow mainstream views, WP:MAINSTREAM. I mean this is even present in WP:NPV.CycoMa (talk) 05:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Majority view or not, it fails by Hitchen's razor. There is no evidence for the thesis, nor for the antithesis. That's absolutely the consensus view (i.e. lack of evidence). tgeorgescu (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I mean historians agree Jesus existed even though there isn’t any archaeology. And I’m pretty sure the links I shown already explained things. CycoMa (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Yeah, they do. But archaeology is archaeology, it isn't higher criticism. No physical evidence means no archaeology. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Just remember what your job as a Wikipedian is mate. Neutral and present majority views.CycoMa (talk) 04:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: To have direct evidence about either David or Solomon would be world news. No Israeli archaeologist is stupid enough to claim that has already happened.

What higher criticism showed is that we have to be highly skeptical of the narrative of the Bible. What archaeology showed is that we have to be highly skeptical of the narrative of the Bible. Now they try to smash the two together, doing something which is neither good archaeology, nor good higher criticism. By conflating the two, they got back the United Monarchy. But there is no smoking gun that it has ever existed, it is all guessiology (speculation). They try to supplant evidence with speculation.

If it fails Hitchens's razor it isn't science. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu like I said earlier I don’t really research much on this topic and honestly it’s not really something that interest me. What I am telling you is that representing majority views is our job. Many editors told me that Misplaced Pages isn’t a place for truth with a capital T. Like I have seen reliable sources that say things that I personally find problematic, but my job isn’t say what I think is or isn’t reliable.CycoMa (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: I have no problem with majority view based upon evidence. I have a problem with a majority view which lacks any evidence. Mind you, this is not original research, it has been pointed out by major scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: if that’s the case did you put sources down that say that? I didn’t read through the entire article on United Monarchy but, is it mentioned?CycoMa (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Yup, two scholars writing for the Jewish Study Bible (2014). And Karma granted that not much has changed in that respect since 2014.

GBRV: "there wasn't any archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of Bablyon, Nineveh, Asshur, or other cities mentioned in the Bible". That's right, until there was evidence, there wasn't any evidence. (And it is misleading to suggest that references to contemporary cities at or near the time of writing confirm the veracity of tales that supposedly happened in a much earlier period.) If at some point there is evidence for the Exodus, then the article will say there is evidence. It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to say there is no evidence for something for which there is no evidence. It isn't even an assertion that something didn't happen. It's just a statement indicating that there isn't a good reason for believing that it did, especially for claims that are extraordinary.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
—

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem with a majority view which lacks any evidence. tgeorgescu, unless the evidence you're referring to here is secondary sources (though from the context, it certainly looks like you're talking primary sources), you've just declared that you have a problem with following WP:NPOV in representing a majority POV if according to your private application of Hitchens' razor (very much an OR-perspective!) the primary evidence is lacking. In other words, you declare yourself in opposition to two out of three core content policies. You follow up with this is not original research, it has been pointed out by major scholars, but in that case Hitchens' razor is entirely irrelevant, and you can just point to those major scholars. Even better: if those scholars are in fact the most respected scholars in the field (as I suspect they are), you've actually got yourself a majority POV (in the field of NPOV, 'majority' should not be weighed by sheer numbers, but rather by impact and respectability among other scholars). If, however, it's not a majority POV, or just barely so, coming up with something like Hitchens' razor to push it through is a serious violation of policy. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 22:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Here is what I added to Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy):

In the ''Jewish Study Bible'' (2014), ] states the concept of United Monarchy should be abandoned,<ref name="lipschits">{{cite book|last1=Lipschits|first1=Oded|editor1-last=Berlin|editor1-first=Adele|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|title=The Jewish Study Bible|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-997846-5|year=2014|edition=2nd|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yErYBAAAQBAJ|language=en|chapter=The history of Israel in the biblical period|quote=As this essay will show, however, the premonarchic period long ago became a literary description of the mythological roots, the early beginnings of the nation and the way to describe the right of Israel on its land. The archeological evidence also does not support the existence of a united monarchy under David and Solomon as described in the Bible, so the rubric of “united monarchy” is best abandoned, although it remains useful for discussing how the Bible views the Israelite past. Although the kingdom of Judah is mentioned in some ancient inscriptions, they never suggest that it was part of a unit {{sic|comprised |hide=y|of}} Israel and Judah. There are no extrabiblical indications of a united monarchy called “Israel.”|pages=2107–2119}}</ref> while ] states the dire lack of evidence about the United Monarchy.<ref name="maeir">{{cite book|last1=Maeir|first1=Aren M.|editor1-last=Berlin|editor1-first=Adele|editor2-last=Brettler|editor2-first=Marc Zvi|title=The Jewish Study Bible|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-997846-5|year=2014|edition=2nd|page=2125|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yErYBAAAQBAJ|language=en|chapter=Archeology and the Hebrew Bible|quote=Archeological evidence for the early stages of the monarchy is minimal at best. In any case, the lack of substantive epigraphic materials from this early stage of the Iron Age II (after 1000 BCE), and other extensive archeological evidence, indicate that even if an early united monarchy existed, its level of political and bureaucratic complexity was not as developed as the biblical text suggests. The mention of the “House of David” in the Tel Dan inscription, which dates to the mid/late 9th c. BCE, does not prove the existence of an extensive Davidic kingdom in the early 10th c. BCE, but does indicate a Judean polity during the 9th c. that even then associated its origin with David. Although there is archeological and historical evidence (from extra biblical documents) supporting various events of the monarchical period (esp. the later period) recorded in the Bible, there is little, if any evidence corroborating the biblical depiction of early Israelite or Judean history.}}</ref>

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That's very interesting indeed, but you appear to be a little tone-deaf. What I was saying is that, if someone were to claim (and this is a hypothetical) that Lipschits and Maeir are opposed by a majority of scholars, countering this by invoking Hitchens' razor on the primary evidence would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Rather, you should point out that Lipschits' and Maeir's POV carries the most weight in the scholarly community, or in the case that it doesn't, concede that it should be given a less prominent place in the article. What I'm saying is, basically, that your own POV on the primary evidence, valid as it may be, should never be invoked for editorial decisions on WP. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: The WP:BURDEN (i.e. WP:RS/AC) is upon those who claim that a majority opinion exists thereupon. I did not claim myself that a majority opinion exists either way. See a recent introduction to the evidence by Robert R. Cargill at The Tel Dan Inscription on YouTube: there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of either David or Solomon.

Karma1998, following exactly in the footsteps of the proven WP:SOCK Editshmedt (somebody else's sock), claims that it were a majority opinion because Finkelstein's Low Chronology has been rejected by many archaeologists (or something to that extent) and Finkelstein would be the only obstacle to the evidence about the United Monarchy. Well, as I told them both, I don't put all my money on either Finkelstein or the Low Chronology. So, their inference about majority opinion is WP:SYNTH at best. Oh, yes, they also WP:CITE William G. Dever, but Dever has a long-standing feud with Finkelstein and would say anything to disparage him. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You did say that it might be a majority view, but it is easily razored with Hitchen's razor, since there is no convincing evidence either way. Moreover, I clearly said this is a hypothetical. Now it appears that Karma1998 did in fact make that claim, but what I am saying applies either way: WP:RS/AC might be invoked when doing what I said that should be done: countering that it's in fact not the majority view. You did something else: you invoked Hitchens' razor on the primary evidence.

Also, in the actual case you're mentioning, asking to verify academic consensus per WP:RS/AC would be valid only if the other party would be proposing to include the claim of an academic consensus (or an "according to most scholars," in the article itself (WP:RS/AC and WP:V apply to article space, not to editorial deliberations). Moreover, claiming that this is WP:SYNTH is completely off: WP:SYNTH is WP:NOTJUSTANYSYNTH, it is synthesis of primary sources. Establishing due weight requires research, but not original research, which by definition is research into primary sources (from our own article: research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review, or synthesis of earlier publications, emphasis added). Synthesizing what secondary sources say, on the other hand, is WP editors' core duty. That's not to say that claims of due weight cannot be based on cherry-picked secondary sources: that would be a bad synthesis of secondary sources, while the normal (or non-POV pushing) course is to produce a good synthesis by taking all relevant sources into consideration. Most content disputes on WP actually revolve around establishing due weight. It's the one thing where editors can't just cite some WP policy to make their case, but actually have to show that they have a good grasp of the relevant literature. It's also the one thing where editors tend to cite all manner of policy wrongly, because most often they did not read through the entire literature (or even a representative sample of it), and prefer to weaponize policy to push their views. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: Both editors could name only two people from the archaeology department of Tel Aviv University who disagree with Finkelstein, for the rest both editors accuse of Finkelstein's close-knit group from Tel Aviv (or something to that extent). So, you see, now the problem isn't Finkelstein alone; it's almost the whole department.

For a somewhat older (1999) WP:RS/AC claim by a top scholar, see http://www.umich.edu/~proflame/neh/arch.htm . Both seem to hate Herzog's claim more than they hate Finkelstein.

Oh, yes, Lipschits works for TAU, but Maeir doesn't (he works for a conservative Israeli university). tgeorgescu (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Like CycoMa above, I'm entirely ignorant of these things. Your POV may be 100% right (and I personally suspect it is, as I most often do with your POVs), but if it is right, it's because it is the majority POV among scholars, and all I am saying is that this is the only correct argument here on WP to defend your POV. The stuff about Hitchens' razor, and the false applications of WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:RS/AC, WP:BURDEN, etc., etc., should go. Thank you for taking this into consideration, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 01:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu Also why are you linking to a YouTube video? Doesn’t Misplaced Pages have a rule about YouTube videos?CycoMa (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Cycoma:

First, I did not use the YouTube video as WP:RS for writing an article; I used it as talk page discussion;

Second, not all YouTube videos are born equal; some exhibit reputable scholars and are published by reputable sources which do not play foul by doctoring those videos;

Third, the opinions on using YouTube videos are divided: some editors argue that all YouTube videos should be banned as a matter of principle, others allow reputable YouTube videos from reputable sources to be used as WP:RS; the later option is more accepted if there are official transcripts of those YouTube videos, e.g. like for Dale Martin's and Christine Hayes's YouTube videos filmed at Yale University. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Karma1998

Try to gather as many diffs of edits that fail verification, as that seems to be Karma's biggest issue. I'll do a write up on it to take to ANI. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yup, they failed to provide page numbers for despite being specifically asked for page numbers at User talk:Karma1998#Jesus. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Failing again at , although already warned about it. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Agartha page

Please stop editing the agartha page with false information or I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthegods (talk • contribs) 06:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FTN, I'll start a topic there. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I would advise very strongly against reporting them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Tgeorgescu. 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 remove this notice 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 Misplaced Pages articles, as you did to Book of Ruth. Doing so violates Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages.org. As the original description read, that information actually violated the "neutral point of view" terms of Misplaced Pages.

In order to maintain the legitimacy of Misplaced Pages.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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages's readership and the integrity of the host.

Sincerely,

MakeWayForTheLion