User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2020/July

possible multiple accounts?

User:A19470822 and User:Rosarosa1955 have both posted in the last few days using the obscure Bibliowicz as a source (User:A19470822 on Gospel of Mark and User:Rosarosa1955 at Gospel of Matthew). Similar editing style also. If this is the case, I'd recommend a simple caution and explanation that this is out of order. Achar Sva (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

And there's another one, Pepepepez1963 from the Gospel of Mark talk page. I think this is just a new, and possibly rather elderly, user who hasn't quite got the hang of it. Achar Sva (talk) 05:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva:  Done. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva: See acknowledgment at [1]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to do it myself because I've reverted a few of his edits and didn't want him to think I was targetting him. Achar Sva (talk) 08:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Romanian Wikipedia?

Hi Tgeorgescu, hope you are well. I got notification that you posted about me at three place on the Romanian Wikipedia. Since this concerns me, and I do not understand Romanian, I just wanted to know why, what's up? I see it's something about an Adam and Eve discussion. I look forward to hearing from you. IZAK (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@IZAK: It was not about you as a person, it was about the principle that Wikipedia is based upon empirical fact, rather than religious scholarship. In fact, I have copy/pasted the message in English language, so there is nothing about you in Romanian which is not also in English (somebody asked me to translate it into Romanian language, so that everybody will understand it). The message which was copy/pasted was the closing of the discussion from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1040#Edit warring, Aspersions and Canvassing by IZAK. Oh, yes, I have also copy/pasted some messages at ro:Discuție:Exodul#The Exodus vs. the Nephites, but it's all in English. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Lilith Revert

Thanks for the revert. I'm not very active on Wikipedia, but I've made several edits before with no problem. I tried to make a very limited edit to the Lilith article, correcting two minor errors: first, the Levy article cited was published in 1855, not 1885 (ten years after Levy's death). Second, having read the Levy article in question, the assertion that he cites Lilith as a goddess of the night is incorrect; he uses the terms "demon" and "night ghost," but not "goddess. My edit was intended to make a non-confrontational adjustment of the claim and citation. After making the change, I saw that I had somehow deleted most of the article after the portion I edited. I have no idea how. I clicked "undo" to my edit, and instead of reverting to the previous form, the article lost another portion. At that point, I decided that I was a bull in a china shop and that someone more knowledgeable would revert the article.

Do you have any insight into what I did wrong? Hiernonymous (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hiernonymous: Nope, but if you use a small screen you could ignore that you have deleted text. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)