User talk:tgeorgescu
Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit, how should they behave and how conflict gets mediated. Everybody is entitled to occasional mistakes, but persisting in mistakes will get you blocked from editing. Our wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. The decision to obey our rules is always personal, but it has enormous consequences for one's activity inside Wikipedia. I cannot decide for you, but I can tell you that it is wise to obey our rules. So, it's not that I like to see you blocked. I would like that you learn from your mistakes and become a productive editor. But if you are not up to the task, you will be blocked. I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. The key point about getting to read about our rules is changing your behavior. We want you to behave according to the rules of our encyclopedia, if you cannot behave you will be blocked or banned. I will report you to admins if it is clear to me that you don't want to comply with WP:RULES.
I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is. (Dutchies don't beat around the bush, but bluntly tell you what's wrong.)[1] I'm blunt but not mean. I could appear mean, but in fact I am only defending the norms and values of this website. I am very harsh on bigots, but reasonable and conciliatory with reasonable people. With people which present themselves as reasonable, I am much more conciliatory than other experienced users. If I can reasonably give you the benefit of doubt, I will do it, otherwise I have a low tolerance for bullshit. I have only become an anti-bigotry vigilante because of the unending attacks of fundamentalists upon our secular encyclopedia. I am very tolerant with those who don't deride science/history/our encyclopedia. According to prisoner's dilemma, The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness".
I'm usually acting as the first line of defense: just because you fooled me it doesn't mean your edits will be accepted by other established editors.
The question is not so much whether Wikipedians should be tolerant or intolerant, but: tolerant with what? And: intolerant with what?
I am neither humble (thinking that nothing can be really known, so everything goes) nor cocky (thinking that I know everything).
I don't hate editors as persons; I hate rule-breaking. I consider that any editor can change his/her mind/behavior at any moment. Few edit warriors do that, but that's another matter. As long as you know when to stop, you can get away with almost anything at Wikipedia. It's not the mistake which is a matter of being blocked or banned, but persisting in that mistake. Exceptions: outing, child grooming, and legal threats. When the community thinks that you made a mistake, accept the judgment of the community.
If you get criticism compliant with WP:RULES, accept the criticism and comply with it. If you have started a conflict, stop the conflict and offer your excuses for it. If you seek to avoid blocks or topic bans through WP:SOCKS you will get banned from Wikipedia. We are tolerant, but not retarded.
I'm not absurd: if you give me WP:RS showing that you're right, I will write myself from your POV. Seriously, the deal is this: give me sources that you advocate a major academic POV and I will write from this POV. The article masturbation is replete with WP:RS/AC claims precisely because I listened to critics of the article. I mean: I did not oblige their wish to adulterate the medical consensus, but I have provided rock-solid sources for the medical consensus. That had nothing to do with me being mean or obstinate, but mainstream science simply wasn't on their side (and still isn't). Since I'm not in charge of the scientific consensus, they were barking at the wrong tree. I'm not a scientist; I have nothing to add to or subtract from mainstream science. I render it for what it is. So, even assuming I was prejudiced against their POV (since it does sounds like an outlier), there was no need of doctoring the medical consensus. They felt treated like outcasts, but even if I wished, I could not offer them a place at the table of mainstream science. There are many people who think they will change mainstream science through editing Wikipedia—but that is a completely wrong approach: Wikipedia is subservient to mainstream science, mainstream science isn't subservient to Wikipedia. What those people really asked is playing fast and loose with the facts of mainstream science. We cannot do that.
Wikipedia has a purpose, it has norms and values; those who violate these get blocked or banned. I am prepared to explain you these norms and values, otherwise to those that do not heed these I believe that giving the cat enough rope it will hang itself. But we're not a clique: everyone who earnestly obeys our WP:RULES may join us. (Yes, yes, Wikipedia has to have rules; we cannot run such a website without rules.)
If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Imho, using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience is worse than using it to promote criminal behavior (seen that definitions of what is a crime largely depend upon the country). For my contributions to Wikipedia I could get the death penalty in several countries (e.g. in North Korea for liberal-bourgeois propaganda, in Iran and Saudi Arabia for blasphemy, sorcery and LGBT-friendly propaganda—what Wikipedia sees as mainstream science, they see as propaganda; in totalitarian countries ideology trumps reality).
If you are here to complain about my edits in respect to porn addiction: there is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. None of that has anything to do with my own person, does it? WP:ACTIVISTS could not figure out if I am pro-porn or anti-porn, so they accused me of being both. Same applies to being pro-Christian and anti-Christian: some have accused me of being outright Antichristic, while others have accused me of writing ads for born-again Christians.
The idea that the Bible was copied 100% exactly, that it lacks any mistake and any contradiction, that it has not been severely contradicted by mainstream archaeology is bigotry, not Christianity. The definition of Christianity isn't "the Bible is without error".
In the long term, reasoned argument and good quality sources works, hysterical accusations of bias and malfeasance simply get you shown the door.[2]
— Guy Chapman
Remember: truth is my weapon and if you misbehave, I will use it against you. If you want to accuse me of something nasty, present evidence or shut up forever. I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth. I like wiki-persecuting bigots, pseudoscientists and quacks. Do you think I'm mean? The watchdog must bite. That means that I'm not a fool, and I will report to admins the violations of our WP:RULES. It also means that I don't shy away from using mainstream scientific/scholarly works against cults, quacks, and pseudoscientists. It does not mean I violate your right to believe what you please. But here at Wikipedia you have to behave according to our own WP:RULES.
Blaming me for the fact that Wikipedia has rules that get enforced is deeply idiotic. I did not ban your pet theology from Wikipedia. I lack the power to do so. It is simply so that pushing fringe POVs is not acceptable to this encyclopedia.
The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.
Having your POV not touted by Britannica is not a violation of human rights.
Having your POV not touted by Larousse is not a violation of human rights.
Having your POV not touted by Wikipedia is not a violation of human rights. Wikipedia does not violate your right to believe what you please, it just does not assume by default that you're right.
If your edit gets deleted because the Ivy League finds it is rubbish, it is not discrimination, and it is nothing personal.
Wikipedia is crowdsourced, while Britannica and Larousse aren't. That's the only difference. For the rest all three have the same ideals and values.
You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Why the Dutch always say what they mean – BBC REEL on YouTube
- ^ Chapman, Guy (1 July 2015). "Homeopaths to Jimmy Wales: please rewrite reality to make us not wrong". Guy Chapman's Blahg. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2021.
Happy join day!
[edit]Congrats on 22! Kingsmasher678 (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Jehovah
[edit]I noticed your post after my collapse of the walls (also, thanks for the typo correction!). I was considering the same revert. Any reason why you changed your mind? TiggerJay (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- (Should be read with sarcasm mode on) Also I find it humorously ironic that your talk page starts with effectively a WALL. (serious mode on) But I'm also quite inclined to steal a good portion of it under Creative Commons. Cheers! TiggerJay (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yup, I have a lot to explain to the newbies (in case they're newbies, not WP:SOCKS). tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
About the article and arbitration
[edit]Hello, Tgeorgeoscu! (Yeah, finally wrote it right), I'll present some sources in the talk page of Nofap regarding the message I left some days ago, although as I said, I was mainly concerned by the tone the article had and the loophole present in it. Sources about Harmfulness of Masturbation or pornography can be presented but don't know if that's related just with a movement as it's Nofap, but if it or anything can change the regrettable state of the article, better if I do, I'll hand them soon, just gotta do some research about it.
I was wishing to talk you about a [Discussion] I have currently with a user about a possible [Edit war] . In the article about John, King of England. I'm relatively new to the wikias constitution and also a meanwhile mobile user. I thought you are a very valid user to arbitrate the dispute I have with Remnsce user and the message I left at his talk page, as Wikipedia encourages arbitration and talking, though no problem if not.
Wakatetiwa Wakatetiwa (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa:
- The history of Great Britain is not my specialism;
- In order to posit the Harmfulness of Masturbation or pornography you need very strong WP:MEDRS, and even then, such sources would belong in the articles masturbation and pornography addiction, not NoFap. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Then what explains the Bias present at [Nofap] that I already reported and nobody has achieved to answer to? You seem to be asking for scientific information when the dilema is about the tone? I have to say though, that I believe that masturbation is harmful, and I agree with provide proof to state that in the talked articles. This is not the core of the arguing nevertheless. Wakatetiwa (talk) 02:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa: I have explained at the talk page that Wikipedia is biased for mainstream science, mainstream medicine, mainstream scholarship, and mainstream press. In other words, Wikipedia is biased for the foes of NoFap. This is no accident, this is how Wikipedia is designed. That is, you're not fighting against me and Remsense, you're fighting against a well-oiled machinery, wherein us are the tip of the iceberg. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's funny you call it biased given the policy of neutrality and conflicts of interest. I didn't suppose a normal conversation about it was fighting but okay, see it like that. Since you have not the context nor the situation knowing, I think the discussion with Remsense is not your concern unless you come with structured arbitration from a neutral POV. I'm not trying to do anything with Wikipedia's rules, but the loopholes people like the latter is using. If the initia "well oiled machinery" came defected or in favour of the interest of someone, or even if the loopholes are intentional, that's not the point, wrongfully or correctly as it can be.
- Wakatetiwa. Wakatetiwa (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa: Your solution: get the American Psychiatric Association to recognize porn addiction (which is unlikely to happen). Or get APA to recognize 90 days reboot as therapy for porn addiction (this is simply preposterous). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The APA is not universal authority to it. The bias is universal in the article o portraits as it just like I reported. If the APA recognises it, it would be a stronghold to support further info. What really matters is the studies and investigations that conclude the statement and the amount in the article and others it's disproportionately higher for what you call "mainstream science" (A tergiversation of it). This kind of backed edits often get in a war or deleted by the kind of users I sometimes I have trouble with, specially with what I said of the group apparently taking care of the articles, in a loophole, so I made not change the gigantic structure against editors as that, but leaving it registered is a first step, thank you, I know now why it is so difficult to reasonate at Wikipedias structures, very clear. Wakatetiwa (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa: AFAIK, there is only one WP:MEDRS which supports the existence of porn addiction, and that is from 2014. Needless to say that it convinced neither APA nor WHO.
- And, frankly, masturbation is harmful belongs to 18th and 19th century medicine, not to 21st century medicine. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know you see it as a conspiracy, but it isn't, you may have a declared war against them or far wing groups and that's reflected on your wikis actions, but being against masturbation given it has no evolutionary use rather than wasting resources is not being an extremist. And meanwhile since I'm talking about it secularly, any opposition and most of the users backing it disguise it as that, religious pseudoscience, I would like to change that with MEDRS, at least to the point other "users" allow it. Wakatetiwa (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa: given it has no evolutionary use rather than wasting resources—that's both false and unsubstantiated. What's wrong with it? See Allègre, Claude (2011). "CHAPITRE XII. La défaite de Platon". La Défaite de Platon ou la science du XXe siècle (in French). Paris: Librairie générale française. ISBN 978-2-253-10941-9. OCLC 758458181. Namely, you try to reason rationally what can only be researched empirically. Armchair philosophizing is not science.
- And what I personally think about it is irrelevant. WP:MEDRS and generally speaking WP:RS are not on your side. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know you see it as a conspiracy, but it isn't, you may have a declared war against them or far wing groups and that's reflected on your wikis actions, but being against masturbation given it has no evolutionary use rather than wasting resources is not being an extremist. And meanwhile since I'm talking about it secularly, any opposition and most of the users backing it disguise it as that, religious pseudoscience, I would like to change that with MEDRS, at least to the point other "users" allow it. Wakatetiwa (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- The APA is not universal authority to it. The bias is universal in the article o portraits as it just like I reported. If the APA recognises it, it would be a stronghold to support further info. What really matters is the studies and investigations that conclude the statement and the amount in the article and others it's disproportionately higher for what you call "mainstream science" (A tergiversation of it). This kind of backed edits often get in a war or deleted by the kind of users I sometimes I have trouble with, specially with what I said of the group apparently taking care of the articles, in a loophole, so I made not change the gigantic structure against editors as that, but leaving it registered is a first step, thank you, I know now why it is so difficult to reasonate at Wikipedias structures, very clear. Wakatetiwa (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa: Your solution: get the American Psychiatric Association to recognize porn addiction (which is unlikely to happen). Or get APA to recognize 90 days reboot as therapy for porn addiction (this is simply preposterous). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Wakatetiwa: I have explained at the talk page that Wikipedia is biased for mainstream science, mainstream medicine, mainstream scholarship, and mainstream press. In other words, Wikipedia is biased for the foes of NoFap. This is no accident, this is how Wikipedia is designed. That is, you're not fighting against me and Remsense, you're fighting against a well-oiled machinery, wherein us are the tip of the iceberg. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)