User talk:Truth lives here

June 2020
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Flood myth—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Flood myth. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 04:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please Define Constructive edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth lives here (talk • contribs)


 * I'll define them for you:


 * Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:


 * "Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.


 * What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t."


 * So yes, we are biased.


 * We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
 * We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
 * We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
 * We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
 * We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathic medicine.
 * We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
 * We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
 * We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
 * We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
 * We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
 * We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
 * We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
 * We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.
 * We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
 * We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
 * We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
 * We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
 * We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
 * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
 * We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.


 * And we are not going to change. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not expect you to change Tgeorgescu however Science is based in repeatable observation-Fact and is not by any standard Biased that is where the purity of it comes from be cause science has no agenda
 * You have exposed your Biased and I am sad you such a Biased User is allowed to moderate Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth lives here (talk • contribs)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Flood myth, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sir Please Stop Vandalizing my contributions to this Edit You are welcome to add but this needs to be neutral you are welcome to revise however the reader decides not the writer what is fact or myth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth lives here (talk • contribs)


 * WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Flood myth. Materialscientist (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Materialscientist (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Get a grip on reality: I did not revert your edits, nor I changed them in any way (except indentation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu I have a very firm grip Your Biased was very clear above there is no room for constructive editing Your Biased will not allow for it You have abused your privileges as a moderator as any moderator can not be biased due to the fact it leave no room for the truth or science only opinion

In addition I offered for you to alter my edit to a neutral end as a result You referenced me as a Bigot for My edit and my offer Tgeorgescu You are not above the rules of Wiki that you have violated

Personal attacks by blocked editor At [173] and [174] a temporarily blocked user casts aspersions about me. I suggest indeffing according to WP:NOTHERE. As I told that editor: Get a grip on reality: I did not revert your edits, nor I changed them in any way (except indentation). Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank You for your Post However I have cast no aspirations about you only pointed out your Biased Intention as stated above and I did ask you to edit my edit of this page and then you accused me of being a bigot and then Blocked me in addition this Moderator Tgeorgescu question My Mental connection to reality there was no reason for any of these attacks this is a abuse of Tgeorgescu moderator privileges

I will maintain that a Biased User should not be allowed to moderate Wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth lives here (talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, as far as I can tell, Tgeorgescu is correct that they have never reverted your additions. The editor who reverted you was Materialscientist, who is also the one who blocked you. AFAICT, the only thing Tgeorgescu has done is add some indentation to your posts and add some comments to your talk page, and recently post about you on ANI. Note that we do not have moderators here on Wikipedia. Unless they've been specifically restricted from doing so, any editor in good standing is allowed to modify pages in accordance with our policies and guidelines, which includes reverting changes or additions. While Materialscientist is an admin, neither me or Tgeorgescu are admins. Being an admin does not give an editor any special right to moderate discussions or edits over and beyond what any other editor has. Admins can block you if you continually violate our policies or guidelines, but any editor who isn't an admin is free to ask for a block in an appropriate place and we can assume it will be granted if it's a clearcut case. As you have already been told, if you get into dispute over your changes you need to discuss them on the talk page for that page rather than continually try to reintroduce your edits. But in addition, there's little point making a proposal for change which is fundamentally against our policies or guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 07:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, passing creationism as objectively true or as equally valid with evolution is fundamentally against our policies or guidelines. I don't see how this editor could become a net positive if he/she is allowed to edit topics about creationism and evolution while still asserting their own POV. Either they quit asserting their POV, or they get topic banned from anything which has to do with evolution and/or the Bible. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your first sentence. But as I noted at ANI, I have no idea why you brought it up. Truth lives here seems to be trying to pass flood myths as factual. This isn't any more acceptable, but it is also not the same thing as passing creationism as objectively true or equally valid with evolution. Let's not confuse an already confusing discussion, by accusing the OP of doing things they don't seem to have actually done. Nil Einne (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with creation it has to do with history There is so much overwhelming evidence that there was a world wide flood it is amazing that even if you remove the scientific evidence that is all around us and even on the mountain tops that you still have the historical accounts referred to as myths a myth implies there it no truth but the one thing everyone should know is when you have multiple accounts from different parts of the world of the same event however distorted the details may be there is a common thread with all of them so when you bring back the evidence that we currently can see in our world weather you believe this was nature or a all sovereign power or a commit the truth is out there

The Only Evidence that was presented that this was not a world wide event was that there could have been a local flood and as we know the world has small floods and Huge floods all the time and no one observing these events and taking account ever described them as a world wide event However this One time in history multiple account were transcribed in historical texts that all describe the same event in history they may have been watered down and the details may have slipped and they may have added things to fit there culture but if it was a myth why are they all the same and could it be they all experienced the same event or were descendants from the survivors how were there, the evidence is there if the evidence that supports the conclusion then let it be heard!!!

People don't need to be told what to think they just need to see the evidence and they will come to the right conclusion if you don't believe this then you do not support science you are only trying to fit the world into your own small box and it will never fit

It is short sighted and narrow minded to ignore the evidence Tgeorgescu and Materialscientist You think I am asserting my Point of View that is correct Let the evidence support the conclusion

In addition To the evidence above I am new on this space However the admin Materialscientist who is by his own assertions is biased and will never change is working to snuff out any free thought how can you ask a Biased person to not be biased when they claim they will never change that means they will not even consider anything that will not fit into there small narrow Biased point of view

So far I have been called a vandal a bigot a lunatic charlatan, my sanity has been questioned and all for what because I want to see historical documents called as they are history and not myth quite resorting to name calling that is the tactics of small minded individuals who can not back up what they say with evidence...

is it wiki's policy to personally attack the Editors with name calling when they make a correction/change? And I will still stand that this is still an abuse of both of your privileges for blocking truth live here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth lives here (talk • contribs)




 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Look you can think what you want. There's no way we can stop your "free thought", we don't know who you are and don't want to find out. However when you come to Wikipedia, your purpose here should be to improve the encyclopaedia by finding and citing reliable secondary sources and writing articles according to what they say. No one here has to prove anything to your satisfaction. If you want argue about the merits of flood myths or the evidence for them or whatever, you should find a suitable forum where that is welcome. Wikipedia has never been such a forum. Nil Einne (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)