User talk:2601:143:C501:C9E0:A509:86E1:554F:23D1

November 2023
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Religious views on masturbation, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:46, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no vandalism occurring. You are currently gatekeeping an article with bizarre passion for the subject and in effect displaying your absolute unfamiliarity with the subject matter despite your talk page suggesting you support biblical scholarship. The issue being included (whether you agree or disagree) here has been broached by scholars. Dr. Will Deming's excellent study on "Paul and Celibacy: The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7" is a landmark study on this topic, represents current scholarship, and is a good place to start where he suggests the influence of Cynic arguments and the role of masturbation remain on the fringes of Paul's arguments in 1 Cor 7. As you continually delete this entry, one can only assume you have underlying motivations. I will go through the proper channels to investigate your gatekeeping of this page, as your fingerprints are all over it. 2601:143:C501:C9E0:A509:86E1:554F:23D1 (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The WP:BURDEN is upon you to produce WP:RS which WP:V your claims. Don't expect me to find sources for views that I have never heard of. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The passage will certainly be re-submitted with valid citations and I will contact Wikipedia about your behavior and expectations for user involvement. I'm concerned that your manner of action is to threaten to block an individual user accusing them of "vandalism" instead of recommending to that user how a citation would clarify a point or including a reference note [citations?] to challenge an entry. Gatekeeping entries by deleting them entirely, especially on topics you yourself admit to having no knowledge, is deeply concerning. 2601:143:C501:C9E0:A509:86E1:554F:23D1 (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You were reverted three times by two editors, and you have been given plenty of hints that WP:OR is banned by website policy. It is simply banned, and this has nothing to do with my person or with your person. It is simply not allowable at Wikipedia and you gave no inkling that you're wanting to relent from pushing WP:OR. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated before I will resubmit the content with appropriate citation. This is not WP:OR as this is not content I am creating without a peer review. In the meantime, please be more discriminating. There are plenty of claims being made in this article that lack the level of excruciating citation you suggest needs to be present in verified Wiki content. 2601:143:C501:C9E0:A509:86E1:554F:23D1 (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Frankly I don't understand If you don't WP:CITE a WP:RS for WP:V your claim, it is WP:OR by definition (meaning uncited). Then, Wikipedia isn't a peer-reviewed work in any meaningful sense. We do cite peer-reviewed papers all the time, but don't pretend that Wikipedia would be peer-reviewed. Even combining two WP:RS to mean something new is prohibited as WP:SYNTH. So, yes, we summarize WP:SCHOLARSHIP, we don't produce new scholarship. tgeorgescu (talk)  14:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)