User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2021/March

Quote
What did you mean by the quote you left on my talk page? Gershonmk (talk) 13:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * This: calls the Oxford Bible Commentary WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. I deleted it because it's a misleading quote -- the OBC thinks the epilogue is by the same author. The page could use a good bit on views on the epilogue -- right now the opposite view is the only one in it -- though IMO quotes wouldn't make the lede. Your quote doesn't even make sense in this context -- the OBC means "obey his commandments" lends the saying "fear god and obey his commandments, for this is the whole of everyone" an orthodox tone -- what is the "saying" supposed to be the way you've quoted it? Anyway that's actually not the conclusion, except liturgically when it's repeated at the end. Gershonmk (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-vandalism treated as vandalism
This edit wasn't vandalism. Reverting it was okay because WP:BCE cautions against changing from one to the other, but leaving a "vandalism" warning on a shared school IP talk page over is a WP:BITE issue. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:12, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll take that into account in the future. At a certain moment I was fed up by so many WP:ERA changes that I was not willing to WP:AGF. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone who used to monitor recent changes rather often, I understand the frustration, just was providing a friendly reminder. :-) PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 23:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
No problem Tgeorgescu. Please tell your editor not to post debate questions on the discussion section as well unless he wishes a response.

Veritashistorica (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC) 

Face it
Face it! You are a failed academic who is way too proud of their Mickey Mouse degree from backwoods Bucharest, pretending to be a "skeptic" on a children's website no one takes seriously. No amount of WP:CIRCLE JERKING will change that reality --2605:8D80:604:C9FC:4EA6:222:1F18:3AA1 (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That's involuntary flattery: a failed academic presents a clear and present danger to pushing your POV inside Wikipedia. Why? Because I do my volunteer job with integrity, competence and honesty. I am of course not the smartest or the most learned Wikipedian, but I do know what I am doing and I'm good at it. You kind of imply that a failed academic has defeated the whole Christian apologetics at this website (all Evangelical colleges and universities, all Catholic theology seminaries, all richly paid Christian think-tanks which employ people with PhDs from CHOPSY, etc., etc.). I know it isn't true, but it is still flattering. You seem to imply that a failed academic is the victor upon the most brilliant minds Christianity ever had. Makes me wonder why I don't have a statue in a public square. All your attempt that Christian apologists take over Wikipedia has become dead in the water due to a failed academic. When all sorts of trolls curse me because of being hardworking and conscientious, I know I do a good job. Wikipedia cannot spread unadulterated academic knowledge without ruffling some feathers. All sorts of true believers, creationists, pseudoscientists, quacks, and other miscreants have a word to say against Wikipedia spreading the academic light. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are not spreading light. You are pretending to be a skeptic on a children's website that is a laughingstock. 2605:8D80:604:C9FC:ABE1:98FB:40DE:268C (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, you think it is a children's website. These people don't:


 * https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia-idUSN1642896020070816


 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/07/french-secret-service-wikipedia-page


 * https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups


 * Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh?


 * https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/26/shock-an-aw-us-teenager-wrote-huge-slice-of-scots-wikipedia


 * https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125437


 * https://www.mobihealthnews.com/33566/study-finds-many-errors-on-wikipedia-articles-for-most-costly-diseases

It's garbage. Dump it. 2605:8D80:604:C9FC:ABE1:98FB:40DE:268C (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are 47... You spend hours taking this children's website seriously convincing yourself that you are spreading the enlightenment. 2605:8D80:604:C9FC:ABE1:98FB:40DE:268C (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of bad things said about Wikipedia, the ninth most-visited destination on the internet. An encyclopedia that anyone can edit, critics argue, is one that is vulnerable to endless mistakes.  Such criticisms have been raised by skeptics since Wikipedia's creation in 2001.  ...  While that ultimate goal imagined by Wales for Wikipedia has not yet come to fruition, there is no questioning the breadth and usefulness of Wikipedia.  Those who refused to believe that a user-generated encyclopedia could compete with the monolithic, traditional encyclopedia written by experts and organized by professional editors, were no doubt shocked when Nature magazine published a 2006 article comparing Wikipedia to the well-known Encyclopedia Britannica.  The article concluded that Wikipedia articles were comparable in accuracy and thoroughness to those of the older, paper encyclopedia.
 * Dick Clark, in "Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?," Mises Daily (19 September 2007)
 * Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You are brain-dead... Wikipedia is actually slightly less accurate ONLY when it comes to 40 science articles. Can you imagine if a 19 year old American teenager could troll an entire volume of Britannica? It would lose any support it had... Wikipedia is garbage. Only when you use the best articles do they come close to Britannica... And even then Wikipedia has a quarter more mistakes in its BEST articles... 2605:8D80:604:C9FC:ABE1:98FB:40DE:268C (talk) 00:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Fox and the Grapes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No. You failed. This is why I actually study at an Ivy level school and you are sitting in front of your computer arguing with teenagers about porn addiction 2605:8D80:604:C9FC:ABE1:98FB:40DE:268C (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No. Here you failed. You're a just a troll, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. You are the troll, I am a hardworking and conscientious Wikipedian. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Children's site? I don't think children's site has such things such as Adolf Hitler or Hentai 950CMR (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is an fan made site according to you? Sometimes yes Wikipedia isn't the most sourced site but most of the times it's an well scholarly cited site 950CMR (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The Daily Dot and Der Spiegel do not speak about teenagers using NoFap. They speak about young extremist adults. See Controversial Reddit communities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: the vandal
Hey Tgeorgescu, I noticed that there’s a vandal that keeps blanking your user page because he thinks you were edit warring with him. I just wanted to tell you that I’ve got your back. I reported him to the administrators. :) HelenDegenerate (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)