User talk:Shasla1

April 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Protochronism, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * But I did give an explanation in the explanation field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)


 * Yup, a phony one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Just because you claim that it is "phony"- doesn't make it so. So, do you care to elaborate?
 * My thesis was: the source given for "russian protochronism" doesn't disprove the russian claims, and thus, doesn't prove that those claims are false and are "protochronism". If you say otherwise- show, which part of the alleged "source" does give valid proof, or any proof at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)


 * Explanation: your deletion reason is phony because it is a verbatim quote from the given WP:RS. See WP:VER for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * My deletion reason pointed out the fact that the "source" for the words didn't give any proof. If you state otherwise- show me the proofs. Just quoting some local laws and hiding behind paragraphs of some "WP:RS" and "WP:VER" doesn't make your statement valid and doesn't make my statement objectively "phony" (and does not remove the need for proofs). Ah, you didn't even quote the parts of those rules that I allegedly broke. So your accusations are double invalid.


 * P.c. And the fact that you answer my posts about romania ASAP, coupled with the fact that you are romanian, shows that you have personal bias. Perhaps you are even the original creator of the "russian anachronism" edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)


 * I am not a historian of the Soviet Union. The quote is properly sourced, to a reliable source and that's all it matters for Wikipedia. We're not in the business of proving anything, since we are neither a university nor a research institute. Since it is properly sourced, your reason for deletion is bogus according to the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. Do, it again and you will receive a higher level warning and eventually get blocked and banned from this website. Remember: the choice is always yours. For who wrote that book see David Priestland: he even passes WP:CHOPSY with flying colors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said, there are no valid proofs in the source, and thus, the source is not valid. Just because you claim otherwise- doesn't make it so. The source gives zero proofs that the soviet claims are false, and thus, the part of the article that allegedly got its info from the source is invalid, and I had all the rights to delete it, and your statement that I did not is a phony accusation. In any case, you are in a business of proving something, as you wrote me and stated that my explanation was "phony", and you continue to try pvoving your position on the matter. And we are in a university. Sorts of. Wikipedia can only post valid information, yes? You must know the local laws better then me. And what is valid information? Information that was proven. Were the words about russian anachronism proven? No. Thus, they are invalid.


 * And yes, you can't just go an scare me with blocks and bans. I registered here only to point out to the fact that the article contained blatant anti-russian lies, not to continue being a part of the wikipedia community. So I give absolutely zero things about those bans.


 * TL;DR: either give quotes from the source, that DO give some proof, or accept that you statement that my explanation was "phony"- is phony itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)


 * You don't get to judge an Oxford professor. Your choice is: obey our WP:RULES or get blocked and banned. What you did not get about Western professors is that historical truth is more important to them than the honor of their own nation. They are not afraid to smear their country if the historical truth so demands. They know that their freedom of speech isn't bogus. If you don't obey our WP:RULES, then you may have freedom of speech in Pravda, but definitely not here. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I do judge an Oxford professor, if he gives zero proof. Just appealing to authority doesn't make the words of the person with the authority or the people who appeal to the person with the authority- automatically valid. You give proofs and counteproofs, facts and arguments- this is the way a correct discussion works, this is the way a polite society works, this is the way the justice system operates, this is the way science operates too.

"The Western professors are all [thruthful and corect] etc etc etc" Do you have anything to validate this statement? "if you don't obey our rules" Ah, so the rules forbid having a discussion on my own user page? Now that's "freedom of speech".. And, as I said, I don't care about your blocks and bans.


 * Arguments from authority... that's what Wikipedia is all about. Glad you figured it out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, Wikipedia is about proof/facts, plus authority, not just authority. An Oxford professor can't just say stuff that would be considered valid- without giving proof, and an Oxford professor definitely can't put his authority against the authority of the Soviet government in a "who has more authority" conflict, as the said government employed a lot of scientists with authority, and the government controlled Russia- the place where the alleged anachronism took place. Who has the most authority as to the events inside a country? Yes, the government. Also, your statements as to "all the western professors are X" are still unproven, as your statements as to "freedom of speech" and the professors knowledge of it. In any case, generalizing all western professors and saying that they are all "x", unless the said "x" stays for a) Western. b) Professor. c) Some authority. d) Human is an incorrect way to wage a discussion.
 * TL;DR: a statement with proof and authority>a statement with proof>a statement with authority>a statement without both;
 * bigger authority>lesser authority


 * If you would have followed Talk:Protochronism you would have noticed that he simply read those claims in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. So much for proof. Wikipedia is simply put a service which summarizes WP:RS. It is not a service which proves facts or theories. Wikipedia is the OSINT of academic learning: it does not generate new knowledge, but simply reads it in published sources. And no, we don't consider Soviet propaganda as reliable fact-based knowledge. More like something between wishful thinking and lying like a dog. Btw, I don't know why you find this offensive: the Soviet regime is gone, it has been dethroned, therefore it no longer has any real power. Russian Federation has another political and economic system than USSR. So no need to feel offended by exposing the lies of Soviet propaganda. The Cold War is over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't just simply read those claims. He reads those claims, and claims that they are false, e.e. protochronism. Or, at least, the person who quoted the professor alleges that he did so. Wikipedia requires sources that have authority, which includes facts, no? If no, why not just copypaste all of the "east-block-country-name propaganda" here? Or is only pro-Western not proven materials allowed here?

Also, just because you claim that those facts stated in Encyclopedia are propaganda, and that soviet propaganda is lies- doesn't make it so. You words are just "phony" accusations with zero proofs or facts under them- only constant "WP RS this, FP SS that". Just look at our discussion: A: You say that my words about anachronism are phony? Can you give proof? B: [ KP SS] Also, you will be banned!. B: You say that all of western professors are truthfull and all of them know something about freedom of speech? Can you give any valid proofs of this? B: [US LS], also, you will be banned. A: you say, that soviets all lie, can you give proof of this? B: [MN BS], also, you will be banned. A: ..proofs of the words? B: [Random letters], you will be banned.; You hide your lack of valid argumentation behind quotations of local rules and threats of bans, but even on the field of the said rules, you are incorrect, as was pointed out in that teahouse or whatever it's called. And yes, "lying like a dog"- dunno if such language is permitted here, but it is definitely not the language of a "well studied, cultured wikipedia specialist" you try to pass as. Also, you just insulted all those living and all those dead soviet history scientists and soviet media/propaganda workers. Also, the usage of "we". Not "we". You. A single person. Says such stuff about the soviets. Don't try to pull the "It's not me, it's the WE" trick in a discussion, it is uncivilized.

"Russian Federation has another political and economic system than USSR." USSR was Russia, despite all the "it consists of separate republics" stuff. So, by insulting USSR you insult Russia. Would you be happy if I started telling bad stories about 20th century romanians? I don't think so. And no, I'm not russian.

"offended" But I'm not offended. It is you who goes around posting ASAP dozens of comments about my 1 small edit, while also writing petitions to moderators in the teahouse, and trying to scare me with a possibility of a ban. Not me.

"exposing the lies"- you exposed nothing. You just claim that all those words are lies, without proving it. Basically, you are lying. No, without "basically". You are just lying.

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, 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". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent edits to User talk:Shasla1 could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I did not threat anyone. Just because you continue to hurl "phony" accusations (I use the word "phony" as you used it against me before)- doesn't make them valid. If you state that I did give threats- give a quote of the alleged "threat". BTW, you are the one who started commenting on me (and then I commented on you), not on my content. E.e. you break the rules yourself.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User tgeorgesku started a discussion, but gave zero arguments in support of his points, and instead, started insulting me (you're telling rubbish! troll! phony!) the soviets (comparing them to dogs, and telling that they all lie), telling stories about western professors (that they all tell the truth and know about freedom of speech), calling my words "rubbish"-smth (the "smth" was some insulting word too, but I don't have time to go and re-read it and quote it), and using demagogical methods, like ignoring my arguments about his claims on "dogs/professors/rubbish", and, instead, changing the topic of the discussion into the "you don't follow the WP rules" direction. And even in this direction he failed, as he stated that Wikipedia just quotes other sources, but after I mentioned the fact that the soviet sources are sources too, he just started the "all soviets lie" thing, and, later, when I repeate it again, he just ignored it. He also tried to twist the rules and appeal to moderators to ban me for "threats", but I didn't give threats, and thus, his false accusations didn't lead to my ban. After that, he continued that demogogy. After he noticed that I destroy his demagogy with reason, facts and logic, he just stopped answering my posts (untill I got banned- after that he became much more bold in answering me on those pages, where I was blocked (but he doesn't dare to answer me here)...but he still ignored the majority of my arguments and reasonings) started running around and reporting me, while using quotes, taken out of context. I wrote those words, that were taken out of context, several days ago. But he reported them only yesterday. Why? Because he doesn't care about the rules, but he just wanted to find a way to ban me, after I sucessfully defeated his demoagogy for those several days. He is a demagogue and a troll. Look at our discussion. I give long, 100+ word posts, and he just gives 20+ word "all soviets lie! you must be banned!111" caustic retorts, often using those pseudo-arguments that I had disproven before (but he ignores those counter-arguments and logical counter-proofs). If Wikipedia moderation cares a bit about the real events, they should read all of those discussions between me and Tgeorgesku- on this page, in the Teahouse, and on the talk-page of Anachronism, including the discussion changelog, for Tgeorgesku likes to play foul, and thus, he might edit his own previous, older words, or my older words too. (while I did edit my words, I only edited them during the posting, e.e. I notice I made a spelling mistake of forgot to mention smth- I quickly fix it. I did not edit the older words and those words that were already answered).

TL;DR: user Tgeorgesku just wants me banned for personal reasons, takes my words out of contexts (to get me banned), and starts flame-wars, in which he insults everyone and everything, gives loud statements, but gives zero facts and valid arguments. If I am banned only for saying, that I don't care about the chance of being banned, and that I'm here only to edit the anachronism page- not become a long-term contributor, Tgeorgesku should be banned for constant lying, insults, trolling (actual trolling), lying to the moderation by twisting facts, and destructive behaviour (he got me banned only because he didn't agree about my edit. framing other wikipedia members is destructive behavious).


 * A wise piece of advice: WP:NOTTHEM. Anyway, you failed to notice that Wikipedia admins have a mind of their own. If you want your unblock request to be processed, use the unblock template. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't care about bans, as I said. The only reason I'm still here, is because I like arguing and debating. Even when I have an opponent who just makes loud claims, but backs down and ignores all the counterargumentation, and is afraid to answer those posts- unless those posts are in those parts of wikipedia where I have been blocked, and unable to respond.


 * That's right. If you were here to edit and build an encyclopedia, you should have stayed cool. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  10:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who started shouting angrily about "soviet dogs", "holy western professors", "wjisdjksdj rubbish" (still don't remember the word he used before the "rubbish" part), etc etc etc. So, I did "stay cool", and Tgeorgescu did not.
 * ... and, we don't care about "arguments", since we're not Debatepedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

It's funny that you say that "we" are not debatopedia, but you started the debate. Did you stay on the "learn the rules of Wikipedia" course, or did you start a debate, shouting about soviet dogs, soviet propaganda and holy western professors who never lie? Yes, you did start a debate, but when you were unable to continue it, and give proofs/arguments in responce to mine, you just backed down and started your little "we do not debate here" line as a pathetic excuse for your previous behaviour in those debates. Yes, I use the word "pathetic", as you were rude to me many times, and thus, I feel that I have the right to be rude to you in responce, and use the correct words to characterize what you did here.

Ah, also, forgot to mention: even when we were talking about rules, you ignored all facts and continued to repeat the "we just quote sources" line. Even after I explained to you, that if you quote a british professor, you might as well quote a soviet encyclopedia. You just stated " hurr durr all soviets lie like dogs!11" and ignored all the arguments and facts that were given in responce to this stupid statement. You also tried to harass me via framing, e.e. accusing me of threats I didn't give, and after that didn't work- you started running around with my words, taken out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shasla1 (talk • contribs)
 * Debatepedia huh. 🤣. Also if you want to get unblocked, place a proper unblock request with a good reason rather than arguing with us. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: .) Sincerely,     Masum Reza ☎  05:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I don't care about the block. I just wanted to show, that this dude who harassed me with wrong accusations of law violations, and made loud statements about politics and history- was false. And to change the anachronism page. But this dude just can't answer my arguments, and thus, he doesn't answer me here any more. And the editing option for the anachron. page is unavailable to me.