User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/November

Pilose399

[1]. I admire patient people like you. I couldn't do it. Bishonen | talk 17:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

edit war

You are in danger of breaching 3RR.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Yup, 3RR is more than three reverts. Consecutive edits (uninterrupted by another editor) count as only one revert. Even Twinkle knows that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The quotes

Hi Tgeorgescu, I think we're in agreement about all the essential points about the Exodus, however, I'm not sure that the posting of long quotes of previous discussions is helpful. I would suggest just summarizing your view now rather than quoting previous exchanges. I realize this is sort of an endless task and gets tedious, but I think it would benefit everyone and maybe lead to less outrageous reactions from Jgriffy.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Ok, I'll collapse two of the quotes. Besides there was a joke about a scorpion and a tortoise, I don't think that he could change his ways. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Up yourself

Hi Tgeorgescu, I think you are up yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.163.173 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, I am not even an admin. I could have been, but never bothered to apply for it. Anyway, this isn't an anything goes forum for crank science, it is an encyclopedia. All I say to some people is that they lack support from WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It does not mean that I hate them. I don't hate people, but I hate breaking WP:RULES. We're simply doing a job, and some people are inapt to do it, maybe because of lacking education or because they are highly biased (WP:NOBIGOTS). This is explained as:

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. Otherwise this is a place for people who are proud that they are intelligent and educated. You see, magnanimity (megalopsychia) is a virtue, not a vice. This isn't a place for people who are ashamed they have a library, or are ashamed of mainstream science, or are ashamed of mainstream Bible scholarship. We have a solution for people who bash Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale: we show them the door. We do not like them and they do not like us. We do not need their support, since bigotry and Wikipedia are incompatible. This is hardly a secret, we want everyone to know it. I'm not being mean but telling it as it is. Don't like what Harvard teaches about the Bible? Keep that to yourself, do not bother us with your POV. I'm not saying that you have to like Harvard. It is just that not liking it is not appreciated around here. The Wikipedia community cannot afford to bash scholars of the highest reputation. That is simply not done upon this website. WP:CHOPSY rule the pages of this encyclopedia. That's part of who we are, part of what Wikipedia is. We make no apologies for it. People who say that Harvard teaches junk simply don't belong among us. As a serious encyclopedia we have no other choice. We really have no other choice than assuming that WP:CHOPSY are the light on the path. Their handbooks are not a secret, their publications are not a secret, so we may know what they teach there. If you don't want that their knowledge becomes available to the masses, you don't belong among us. Our purpose has never been preventing the public from knowing their teachings. We do not seek to pamper the true believers. We render hard-core Bible scholarship and make no excuses for it. Its light will be spread, unless you succeed in disbanding Ivy Plus and all US state universities (to not even mention Europe, Canada and Australia). All I stated here is a matter of encyclopedic knowledge (academic learning), not of a superiority complex. An encyclopedia dedicated to academic learning renders top academic learning. This seems pretty straightforward and uncontroversial to me. Bigots would have none of that, that's why this encyclopedia is not meant for them. Bigots would like a Wikipedia without Big Bang, without evolution, without mainstream Bible scholarship and obviously endorsing their own pet theology. If the above seems to be inferred from insufficient information: I regularly get attacked by quacks, New Age woo peddlers, protochronists, extremists, nofappers and bigots. So I guess this time because of bigots, since that essay I have recently created and promoted to top Google searches. I have read "Appendix D" from Ken Ham's Already Compromised. Well, we don't consider his POV encyclopedic knowledge, since we're not Conservapedia or New World Encyclopedia. "Appendix D" only shows how absurd and ridiculous the claims of creationists are, for a scientifically educated person. We side with scientifically educated persons, not with Ken Ham. That guy would preach all day long that astronomy, nuclear physics and biology are Antichristical sciences. We have a low tolerance for such craps. If reputable scholars have written that the theology of some Pauline epistles contradicts the theology of other Pauline epistles, it is not our task to WP:CENSOR that information. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Masturbation and the rabbis

For reasons that totally baffle me you seem to take an interest in this topic. Read, and be enlightened. Achar Sva (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: Ok, thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)