User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2024/April

WP:REFBOMB

This is a serious warning, but one I want you to take with notice that I'm not in substantial disagreement with you. There is never an acceptable reason to drop a WP:REFBOMB of 35,049 bytes, particularly one that largely does not directly pertain to the subject at hand. However, I agree with you! I know most scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written anonymously, but the citation in the article at the outset did not support that conclusion. All that was necessary was a recent academic source that explicitly said something to the effect of "most scholars believe the Gospel of Mark/synoptic gospels were written anonymously". Instead, you reverted a well-meaning new editor and accused them–quite unfoundedly–of POV editing. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I was in the process of seeking a single source that supported the "most scholars" claim, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that REFBOMB is against many references (footnotes), not against many sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Your understanding is very wrong. Per REFBOMB: A common form of citation overkill is adding sources to an article without regard as to whether they support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic, which is absolutely pertinent considering the fact many of the sources were wholly unrelated to the subject. Unfortunately, this is a common sense thing, and I would encourage you to refrain from similar disruption going forward–especially since you're absolutely correct here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If you mean the Gospel of Mark only: you are right. If we mean NT gospels are anonymous (as I have explicitly stated): I was right. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You never explicitly said that. The content being source exclusively dealt with the Gospel of Mark. And, even if you had, it wouldn't have made sense. Regardless, it does not justify a 35k POINTy edit including numerous off-topic refs and BITING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Pornography discussion

How is referring to documentation on court cases, citing obscenity tests, legal definitions and court verdicts concerning the topic from: casetext.com, jolt.law.harvard.edu, cornell.edu, and justice.gov not reliable sources, original research, or not verifiable? Especially when they are websites...some of them .edus and .govs...and the particular cases specifically...explicitly...state the words porn, pornography, and/or pornography dealers? 173.80.7.142 (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I advise you to seek WP:DR. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We havent reached disagreement, you made that decision, im asking you how. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

If you need answers, seek WP:DR. I got tired of explaining WP:OR to you. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be extremely clear if I take it to wp:dr because i have no intentions of making anything up. So you're going to have to answer something...

You listed I believe 5 different things that I do not have the ability to check for obvious reasons.

Would you list them again, I know two are Wp:or and Wp:v 173.80.7.142 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's your right to take it to WP:DR. I have no wish of starting WP:DR about WP:SNOW.

It is high time that you piss off other editors than me. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

You listed approximately 5 things, i only remember two. This will be my second and last time asking you: What were the other 3 wp things you listed regarding my sources. 173.80.7.142 (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Nothing got deleted. You may still read that whole thread. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"No usable sources have been provided, [show] and this has long passed the point of WP:NOTFORUM"

That is the only thing that is there and the [show] part is not clickable for me 173.80.7.142 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

There are more ways to skin a cat: click upon talk page history. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your efforts to keep Wikipedia away from being a place of religious promotion. — Kaalakaa (talk) 09:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Chronology of the Bible

In my conversations with you, you showed that you maintained a set of values. Even though I don’t agree with your conclusions I respect that you have principles.

If you maintain that fringe views are not going to be accepted on wikipedia, I would like to request that you go look at the page on the Chronology of the Bible. The page says that the Hebrew Bible, specifically it states the Masoretic text, contains the books of Maccabees. This is verifiably false on all accounts. The books of Maccabees have never been in the Hebrew Bible, nor are they considered scripture by Jews. This is blatantly false and it is an easy fact to check. I am not a Jew but I have a Masoretic text and none of the books of Maccabees are included, this information can also be found in online versions of the text. The book of 1 Maccabees wiki page even clearly states that it was never included in the Hebrew Bible. The same goes for the Masoretic text wiki page, although it does not explicitly state Maccabees is not in it, it says that there are 24 books in the text. 24 is the correct number and none of those are Maccabees. Every place on the internet will tell you that this page is false.

This page is completely fringe and I you are adamant about your beliefs I hope you will check it out. Lukeferg96 (talk) 07:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Preview

Please consider using the Preview option when writing posts on talk pages; 34 edits to make a single post is rather excessive. Primefac (talk) 06:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Primefac that's my style: I slowly make my way through the arguments. That is, I cannot formulate all the implications in just 10 or 15 minutes, it takes me a long time to think it through. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Composing in an offline word editor might help that process. Just a suggestion. Primefac (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: As you can see, those edits are the product of six hours of reflection. Meanwhile I even performed some edits in different articles, and upon different talk pages. Do you expect me to work 6 hours long in an offline word editor? And sometimes it even takes me days, not hours. The gist is: for pages that almost nobody reads, and if they read, they read them with large pauses in between, that cannot be so irksome. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's the watchlist spam that brought me here; receiving dozens of notifications about minor tweaks to the discussion. I mainly wanted to let you know that I do find this irksome in the short-term, because not everyone ignores a notification for days on end. That is all. Primefac (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Primefac: Okay, I'll use a sandbox. I hope nobody has my sandboxes on their watch-list. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)