User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2018/March

Metaphysics

Dear Sir, Could you reconsider inclusion of my recent post for the following reasons. Metaphysics deals with "being" which is a subject, My recent post includes a book name that deals only with the "being". A being is subject, another being is no less than an object in the view of the being in question, My recent post includes a book reference which made a bridge between Metaphysics and the proof of Being, It is an individual research paper based on direct experience. This book when said is a proof gives a technique called "witnissing" which proves the whole science of Metaphysics that it is not just theory. As you are the Admin / moderation, the decision is purely up to you. Thanks for reading this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rakrsu13: I am not an admin and in a sense all Wikipedia users are moderators (i.e. the whole community). We do have rules to be obeyed by everyone. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Sir, In such case I request you to kindly facilitate the inclusion. If you need evidence of the mentioned claims in my message to you above, I request you to kindly take a glance of the book contents, may be your opinion might change. Hoping that you shall not delete the entry, I will readd the entry once again. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You said: Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Metaphysics. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This is not a promotional material. The book belongs where it belong in the wikipedia. Your decisions in removing the book entry is prejudice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Rakrsu13: You have missed the part with "rules to be obeyed by everyone". Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: You are missing the very rule yourself, Metaphysics is not your own, Your judgements based on your personal prejudice is not welcome. Rakrsu13 (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You did not even bother to read our rules, did you? Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

You did not even bother to read the book of which I am putting an entry in the Metaphysics wiki page, did you? Yet you take a call in removing my edits based on your prejudice. Wikipedia is not your property.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakrsu13 (talk • contribs)

... said the WP:SOCK before getting indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Isaiah

Why did you revert my edit to Isaiah? It is truly false to say "virtually no one believes Isaiah was written by one person". Many Jews and Christians believe this. That is millions of people. Tzadik (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

We do not pander to true believers (millions of people), we pander to mainstream scholarship. I will explain more on your talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Please remove offensive bias from "The Exodus"

The majority of this article is offensive, one sides, anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian. How can you call the history of the majority of the worlds faith (Abrahamic faiths including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) and the history of the nation of Israel a "foundation myth." The author of this article uses untrue and nonobjective generalities like saying "most scholars agree, many scholars agree, a consensus of archaeologists". Being myself a theologians and holder of a masters and doctorate on the subject matter these are just not true. I do not know the best way to edit this post but my attempts to make them objective have been denied. Please help me to know how to make the appropriate corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John Aaron Matthew (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Addressing on their talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@John Aaron Matthew: There is nothing antisemitic in having no evidence for David's United Monarchy, see e.g. Coogan, Michael (2010). "4. Thou Shalt Not: Forbidden Sexual Relationships in the Bible". God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says (1st ed.). New York, Boston: Twelve. Hachette Book Group. p. 105. ISBN 978-0-446-54525-9. Retrieved 5 May 2011. Jerusalem was no exception, except that it was barely a city—by our standards, just a village. In David's time, its population was only a few thousand, who lived on about a dozen acres, roughly equal to two blocks in Midtown Manhattan. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help) Many notable Israeli archaeologists take this view, simply because they cannot make up evidence, it is a matter of evidence. If you want sources which explain this to those who have little academic knowledge, see https://peteenns.com/briefly-3-edgy-things-old-testament-works/ and https://peteenns.com/3-things-i-would-like-to-see-evangelical-leaders-stop-saying-about-biblical-scholarship/ . According to WP:NOTNEUTRAL not all sources are equal for us, we're biased for mainstream science and mainstream scholarship. I have outlined at WP:CHOPSY how we deal with such conflicts of sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tgeorgescu

Just wanted to check who decides to change year references. for e.g. Initially, when pages were created they must have BC/AD year references and some user, just like me must have changed to BCE/CE. Who approved that change and on what basis?

If this is controversial to change the year references to BC/AD and should be avoided, then it should be controversial to change the year references to BCE/CE and should be avoided by everyone. Only if a page is created with 'whichever' year reference should be allowed to keep and not afterwards, or maybe if the original user decides to change it, then it should be considered legit.

Food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj.dogar (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

First gain WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page of each article, then change the WP:ERA of that article. Otherwise you are heading to being banned from Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure, Thank you for keep reminding me for being banned.

I'm new here, trying to understand things buddy ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mj.dogar (talk • contribs) 17:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Our articles receive attention from a lot of WP:SPA edit-warriors, so for me it's hard to know who is really a newbie and who is an unwanted WP:SOCK. Just making an error won't get you banned, but persisting in error will. So, it's up to you to learn our rules and apply them successfully. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)