User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2018/November

Textual corruption in early NT writings

[This is an interesting piece - might be better than Ehrman?] PiCo (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

You misunderstood my post

Hello Tgeorgescu - I believe you misunderstood me regarding my recent post about biography pages on Wikipedia. I am not, repeat NOT making any litigation threats against anyone. I am merely asking if such info about individuals that appear on biography pages pose a danger that someone might steal a perdon's identity. MAureliusAugustus (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAureliusAugustus: I did not. I did not claim that you have issued legal threats. I just advised you about the WP:RULES, namely WP:NLT. This is not something to be pondered by the community, but has to be communicated to the legal department of Wikimedia Foundation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok. But respectfully, the way you worded your original message to me, it came scross to me as if you thought I was thinking of litigation. But I understand now Wikipedia position on this, and I thank you for your response. MAureliusAugustus (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@MAureliusAugustus: You have spotted something which can be construed as breaking the law or as facilitating breaking the law. It cannot be decided by the English Wikipedia, since it has no authority upon the French, German and Russian Wikipedias. Also, breaking the law is not something which the community is allowed to do. So, if there is going to be a decision about this, the only persons who could take such decisions are the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation, only they could ban such data from all Wikimedia projects. The community of English Wikipedia has no authority upon that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Vote please

Te rog voteaza sa nu stearga pagina asta cu actorul din Creed II romanul (Florian Munteanu). Are surse tot dar vor sa-l stearga, deoarece nu a jucat decat in doua filme. Creed 2 fiind debutul sau ca actor. Eu am vazut sute de pagini pe wikipedia cu alti actori care au jucat doar intr-un singur film deci nu vad care e problema.

Daca mai cunosti vreun roman pe aici roaga-l te rog sa voteze si el. Mersi! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.15.105.101 (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia nu este o democratie. Nu numarul de voturi conteaza, ci numai argumentele. Un singur argument bun bate zeci de voturi. Din pacate nu cunosc mare lucru despre subiect ca sa ma implic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tgeorgescu. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Pornography addiction/FAQ and Talk:Judith Reisman/FAQ at the Judith Reisman talk page

Hi, Tgeorgescu. I'm not sure that the pornography addiction FAQ (in whatever version) belongs there or on the talk page of other biography pages. Yes, per WP:Due weight and WP:YESPOV, we shouldn't present contested ideas as more supported than they are or state opinions as facts, but researchers are allowed to have their views and it's not always necessary for us to challenge their views, especially each one, in their biography articles with material along the lines of "but other scientists state" or similar. See the current state of Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons where this was discussed (although those discussions are more focused on types of sources). If a researcher supports conversion therapy, for example, we don't need to add a counter point for each of their views on it. The vast majority of the criticism on conversion therapy belongs in the Conversion therapy article. If Judith Reisman talks about pornography addiction in an affirmative sense, well, we quote her. Not add "but" or similar to each view she has on the matter. We can and should make it clear that very contested views are disputed, though, obviously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

In this section of the Judith Reisman article, one sentence states the following: "As of 2 October 2018, PubMed contains no results either for 'erototoxin' or for 'erotoxin'." That sentence is sourced to a PubMed search query. How is that appropriate? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I am not well-versed in BLP policy. So you may undo those, I won't object. Also, I was trying to prevent stupid edit-wars about stating fringe views in the voice of Wikipedia, believe me, I see that a lot. So, talk pages are a different matter from articles. AFAIK, the DSM is the only broadly accepted manual for diagnosing mental disorders, it is even mandated by health insurance companies. ICD is only a handbook of codes, so that a Mexican and a French MD understand each other's diagnoses. And yes, going by the fact that addictions got purged out of the DSM, there might be a pornography compulsion diagnosis in the future, but a pornography addiction diagnosis is unlikely. So, if you ask me who has a lot of power to decide over health insurance money, it's the DSM. In respect to the PubMed search from the article: many eyes saw it and nobody told me that it would be a problem. While it could formally be seen as WP:OR, I always seek to be truthful and accurate in all I write. I mean: it could be not in conformity with WP:RULES, but a court a law cannot consider it libelous, since it is true. It's both truthful and publicly known (anyone who performs the search can find out that it is true; it is neither a secret nor a privacy violation). I have commented it out of the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Almah

Tgeorgescu, I do not understand why you reverted my post in the almah page. You sent me a talk that I need to sign, so I went back and thought that is what I did. Smille10 (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Could you do something with Anonymous Hidden user?

He is vandalizing at every moment the articles of the popes, especially the saint Peter and saint Linus articles.

@Rafaelosornio: If he makes mistakes give him warnings, if enough warned then report him to admins. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

He has returned as THE UKNOWN EDITOR, here his last changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/THE_UKNOWN_EDITOR Rafaelosornio (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Additions to Jesus , See Also

Dear Tgeorgescu, I have recently added * Arianism * First Council of Nicaea 325 A.D.

• Voting About God in the Early Church Councils by Ramsay MacMullen, Yale University Press, 2006 at: Jesus, wikipedia. See Also. I have no idea how welcome this new data will be. I leave it in your wise hands. Sincerely, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: It looks legit, but I cannot see your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Tgeorgescu, There were no edits only additions at See Also. Thank you for your help and discipline. It is interesting Jesus became God due to the results of a popular vote. But my favorite tale is how Mary, Jesus' mom became the "Mother of God." Sincerely, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: That Jesus has become God through voting is a quite crude cliche. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Tgeorgescu, That is critical history. Like it or not. If I remember correctly those who gave opposing votes were excommunicated. THAT IS CRUDE!! Sincerely, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Miistermagico: I mean: it is a huge oversimplification of a complex historical process. Also at the First Council of Nicaea, the vote wasn't about Jesus being God, but about whether The Son is of the same substance with the Father (they all believed that Jesus is God, but in different ways). Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Tgeorgescu, I do mean to be inconsiderate, but you likely deem theology to be a lot more serious than I do. Sincerely, miistermagico Miistermagico (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)