User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2020/January

Criticism

Upon your recent message me to me, I note that part of what you entered stated that "though those doctrines [Referring to personal/religious beliefs] may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.". Given I was making my edits on the article about a religious document, correcting them to match the views of those that use that specific document. I assumed that was included under an "appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.". Especially when considering that my edits were information provided from a class specifically about that specific document, and numerous personal studies of the document, I assume correcting "modern scholars" to "secular scholars" to show the clear differentiation between the two, so that new readers would not assume the "modern scholars" were referring to biblical scholars (As they clearly were not). If attempting to clarify the difference between the two is somehow pushing my opinion, I would appreciate an explanation as to how they are, rather than a copy and pasted paragraph designed with anti-theistic sentiment (Which to note, is an opinion in and of itself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vaxorian: You cannot find more than a handful Bible professors who aren't either Jews or Christians. I will answer with a quote from a believing (but not bigoted) Jewish Bible professor:

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

On the BAS website you may see him wearing the Kippah. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry?

I am only very recently acquainted with this term in regards to Wikipedia, as when viewing the Wikipedia article for Moses, so I have a very basic understanding of it. Supposedly if someone is accused of sockpuppetry they are accused of creating multiple accounts (after being banned I assume).

I would like to address where I'm assuming you are coming from when accusing me of sockpuppetry. I noticed a user on numerous religious articles for wikipedia that almost always had his works reverted. So as I went to his talk page to ask why his works were removed when they seemed relatively neutral from my perspective. As I was on his page, I noticed the same notice you left for me, so I went forth and checked some of his edits. Noticing that many were repeatedly removed by the same person (You in this particular instance). So after noting your dispute with him about the Book of Ruth, I went forth and undid the edit, assuming your reversion was simply a mistake (Rather than vandalism) as it removed a citation from a source widely accepted by over 2 Billion People around the world.

I assume that you noticed that my account was created today (For the sole purpose of correcting key details within the Book of Genesis page, and being able to address those that wish to push their narrative) So it is a logical assumption (Given the pessimistic nature) to see me returning the edits of those that you dislike, but that I find accurate, to be a showing of me to be a sockpuppet account. But since Wikipedia can identify IP's, Browsers, and as far as I know even individual computer origins (IP6 id or Mac Address) I stand glad knowing that my account will not be suspended. But I wish to warn you that if repeated "reports of misconduct" will be taken as harassment, and neither you nor I wish to deal with that.

If you genuinely believe I have committed misconduct, I applaud you, and suggest that you continue attempting to correct my misconduct. Nobody is beyond reproach, but nobody is deserving of harassment, so just keep that in mind. Be considerate, and stay neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vaxorian: There is no doubt that I had a good reason for reporting you at WP:SPI. It is spelled out at WP:DUCK, nobody will think of my report as harassment, since it perfectly complies with WP:DUCK requirements. And, no, by our book the Bible isn't a WP:Reliable source. Get used to that, since won't change any time soon. Original research performed upon the Bible will be knee-jerk reverted by any experienced Wikipedia editor. This is nothing personal, we don't want our encyclopedia ruined by true believers. Harvard trumps true believers. At least at Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your entire statement falls apart, as you didn't report me for misleading information, or information that broke protocol, you reported me for sockpuppetry, which is absolutely ludicrous. Even under the assumption that you are 100% Correct that historical manuscripts cannot be cited for relevant information. How would that make me a sockpuppet? Reporting someone for what they supposedly committed and let Wikipedia decide, don't make it go beyond what is necessary, simply because you feel Wikipedia will side with you over my Agnostic Deistic beliefs. Neutrality means showing both sides but siding with neither, it doesn't mean openly siding with anti-theism. But back to the main point, accusing me of sockpuppetry for reverting a change is childish. I assume it may have angered you, and I apologize, but I don't believe you should bring your emotions into the consideration. Facts trump emotions, at least they should at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Vaxorian: That you have performed WP:DUCK edits is a fact, not an emotion. Take heed from WP:NOBIGOTS that we side with Harvard and Collège de France, not with true believers. See also WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I simply do not care if it "Appears like a duck" and I simply do not care if you believe so. The facts remain and will be shown by Wikipedia that I am a different individual from the one you are claiming me to be. This can be proven via my IP Address, which is also registered to have made edits around the same time as the supposed puppeteer. But regardless of if you believe me or not, I simply do not care, your opinion is worthless to me, given you place institutions above reproach. (And Harvard of all? Yale is far more reputable, if you're going to pick a biased institution that fits your beliefs, at least do it right). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaxorian (talk • contribs) 23:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Your confirmation bias has taken a firm hold in this investigation. You selectively cherry-picked evidence that supports your false belief (This other person restoring my edit that was not original research) while systematically ignoring evidence that refutes it (this other person restoring my edit over three weeks after you reverted it for being original research, which it wasn't). Primal Groudon (talk) 05:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Primal Groudon: I did not claim to know that you were the same person, that's why it is called an investigation. Also, the investigation was endorsed by a checkuser, who did not think that the diffs were in any way tampered with (it's impossible to tamper {{diff2}}). About WP:OR, Achar Sva and WP:RSP regulars wholly agree with me on this issue concerning your edits. It's the opinion of the Wikipedia community that original research on the Bible is not allowed. Repeat WP:OR, and you'll land in hot water. As Ian.thomson wrote If you're not interested in this site's polices, we're not interested in what you have to say. All we are saying is that you won't get very far with inane lucubrations such as I let the verse interpret itself in order to extract an 11th century BCE dating from it. The authors of the Bible did not know they were living in the n-th century BCE. Every experienced editor will have to revert you on that, we are a hive mind in that respect. Mutiny is futile, you cannot win such dispute, since we have the power, we have defined the WP:RULES and we enforce the rules of Wikipedia. To sum up: the Bible has never been WP:RS and if you use it as RS the powers of WP:RULES are against you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

So what if people agree with you? For all I care, HM Queen Elizabeth II could believe the false statement that my edit was original research, and that wouldn't change the fact that such a statement is false, nor would is make that statement "less false". Onto the original topic, your statement "I did not claim to know that you were the same person" is a complete strawman as I never said you claimed to know such a thing. All I said is that you were selectively picking the fact that this other person restored my edit while ignoring the tree week gap. Primal Groudon (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Primal Groudon: And the Wikipedia community does not care about what you believe: for the community you edit is WP:OR and your own opinion is irrelevant. The community has the power, you don't have the power. If you violate our rules you will land in hot water. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't pollute my talk page

Or I will report you to the admins! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrun Falt (talk • contribs) 10:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Yup, meanwhile you have been indeffed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Context: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Please_block_my_user_account_forever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)