User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2019/March

About G. Gertoux
In the article Names and titles of God in the New Testament I restored the text because reasons were not exposed for deletion. In addition, the text was poorly written because of the absence of the argument. It was read WP:fringe, but in reality the argument was supported by secondary sources. Have a good day. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Warning ?
Hi, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw this warning of yours and to be honest, i don't see how a level 3 warning was relevant for an editor who edited this article in good faith, according to your own edit summary. Please let me know if you think i'm mistaken. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you ask me to do it, I'll retract the warning. By the way, he already had a level 2 WP:OR warning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. You're right, he got a level 2 warning 2 days ago, i think this warning was also a little too harsh (per WP:BITE). This user seems to need help and he does not sound like a disruptive editor meaning to harm wikipedia. Wish you a great rest of your day. Best regards. ---Wikaviani  (talk) (contribs)  00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

That ANI thread
The issue isn't with the underlying notion that WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE exist and that we follow them. You didn't need to re-state this principle in the first place (since all editors already understand it), much less need to argue defensively in circles about it until the thread was hatted. As both Legacypac and Ian.thomson tried to make clear to you, the manner in which you did this was a gross false equivalence that is inflammatory without cause. Adding "and Scientology" (a patently fraudulent scam banned as an organized crime enterprise in various countries) into a list of real religions going back centuries and millennia, is very similar to adding "and Nazism" onto a list of everyday political movements (the ones not guilty of the mass-murder of millions) as all being subject to MOS:DOCTCAPS. It's guaranteed to and appears engineered &#91;see WP:POINT&#93; to generate anger at the comparison, and the addition of such a "one of these things is really, really not like the others" example adds nothing useful. I can tell you from direct recent experience that making an observation that is technically correct but inflammatory seemingly just for the sake of being inflammatory (a matter of perception not intent) will result in censure, especially if you stick to it. PS: I'm saying all of this as an agnostic bordering on atheist, and someone directly involved, back when it was needed, in off-site anti-Scientology activity. I'm not even slightly defensive of Scientology, nor of the idea of treating religious scriptures as history or religions as subjects to treat with unique deference or other special pleading – I actually most of DOCTCAPS. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, in the future I'll stick to religions more than five hundred years old. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Testosterone
Why did you remove the info about testosterone 12:13, March 16, 2019? The information was a good addition, which is attached to reliable scientific sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logvlad9 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I still do not understand ... It was indicated links to 4 newest research. Argue better reason for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logvlad9 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:MEDRS, medical WP:SOURCES have to be at least systematic reviews and indexed for MEDLINE. We do not accept WP:PRIMARY sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)