User talk:MakeWayForTheLion

Welcome!

Hello, MakeWayForTheLion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Greyjoy^talk 07:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Book of Ruth. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits. You WP:CITE pretty WP:FRINGE sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Book of Ruth, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

If^[1] you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 28 May 2021 19:42:02 (UTC)

References

^ I'm not saying that you do, but if...

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 28 May 2021 19:42:02 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Your attacks and groundless accusations of antisemitism against tgeorgescu are completely unacceptable. Your recent editing is disruptive also, but playing the antisemitism card when you're reverted is way worse. I've blocked you for 72 hours. Any more in the same style will lead to an indefinite block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

June 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Book of Ruth. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Endlessly fighting against the supremacy of WP:CHOPSY is disruptive. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reason:

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Tgeorgescu. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

😆😆😆 MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me tell you a "secret": Wikipedians do not have much sympathy for True Believers. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Although that qualifies as a personal attack, I won't report you. True Believers still have sympathy for "Wikipedians". MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 21:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... Calling a spade a spade is not "incivility", and should never be the reason for blocking, banning or even admonishment. ... Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Thank you for supporting my position. MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to adapt to your rules. You have to adapt to our rules, otherwise you will be booted out this website. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

😆 The Hall Monitor has spoken! MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your e-mail, I'm not motivated by hate: not towards you, not towards Christians, not towards Judaism. But this is a place dedicated to academic learning of the mainstream sort, and we will keep it that way. By design Wikipedia kowtows to mainstream Bible scholarship and not to religious orthodoxy. See for details Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy—Wikipedia is a Modernist institution. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

I see you have promptly followed my previous block with more harassment of Tgeorgescu.[1] Editors shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap and those kinds of "blessings". You have been blocked indefinitely. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 21:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Bishonen. I've been expecting you. How are you feeling today? Empowered? Important? Empty?

Regardless, I wish you all the best, may you and your children find fulfillment in all your endeavors. MakeWayForTheLion (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I'm not saying that you do, but if...

[1]