User talk:Vortex515

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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.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".

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say.

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15 February 2021 07:43:08 (UTC)


 * Vortex515 (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Not sure if this is a generic message, but replying just in case. This is not very clear in its writing, purpose,, or consistent and clear presentation. (i.e. one section says one thing, then it's repeated again and says something different). I'm assuming it's meant to be a help guide, but it's rather disjointed.


 * Whoever reads this, if anyone and not just auto generated, I would kindly suggest sending only the correct, current, clear guide. Also, would remove the final two paragraphs as they come across as very agro, closed minded, and assumptive. I'm sure that's not the intent of this guide. Not to mention these would be a clear violation of stated policies and requirements for users.


 * Take your creationist POV-pushing to your own blog or Conservapedia. This is not an outlet for your POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue what you are talking about. But really you need to take a step back and let off the unnecessary aggression in your tone. It seems very assumptive of you concerning me as a person and my I guess "agenda"? I'm merely trying my hand at helping a site I've used and donated too (off and on) possibly since it first began. But I've never tried edits before, thought it would be good to help.

The description for this film looks like it was not a plain description, but more a discussion of it's views, whether right or wrong. A film, by the way, I've never even seen. Having been a professionally trained military meteorologist, who has loved the Sciences since I could remember, I was naturally interested to see what it was about and saying. I only just heard it mentioned in the post comments for something completely unrelated. Coming here as usual for me when reading or researching I read the description and it sounded like it would fit better in a sub category, such as "views espoused" or "contradictions" than at the top. But not knowing the jargon or the system, I don't know how to move it, so I just submitted an edit. Then when I went to confirm my email for the account, I saw what I thought was an automated response. It wasn't well written nor articulate and therefore I'm thinking it wasn't professionally developed and could be cleaned up for future work (I.E. provide definitions of acronyms used, ensure only the most current list is provided, and leave off immediately judging someone as having an agenda, instead end with helpful questions and willingness to help).

Now knowing it was personally written let me encourage you to give the benefit of the doubt to new users, unless they tell you directly they are here to fight or simply treat you wrong. What you sent definitely wasn't helpful for a newbie like me trying to get a feel for things.

Of course, now I'm making some assumptions that based on this comment, your truly outlandish response, and reaction it seems you are having a bad day. If so I'm really sorry it's so rough for you. I'm sure it will get better.

Let me assure you, I have no qualms with stating my beliefs, opinions, personal study, professional study, and experiences. You can be assured, if I were on some propaganda hunt, I'm sure over the past 15 years or more there have been multiple times I would have read something here that I would have "come to defend". However, I belive it is absolutely possible to live, work, and even play in a manner of equal respect, intelligence, and scientific logical reasoning. Meaning, if it's simply my opinion, or even the opinion I prefer and agree with, I won't be dogmatic and force others to abide by it. Therefore, I would kindly request you recant the accusation and acknowledge your impressions or ideas have clouded your ability to offer real help.

In the meantime, should you be able to provide real guidance and help after you calm down, I know that would serve both of us far better than baseless accusations (some of which I may be guilty of as I'm merely responding to your comments and if so I apologize).

Also, I don't think my suggested edit went through as I never received any email confirmation of its receipt (so I tried again, hopefully that doesn't clog up the process with a duplicate), but again not sure how that works. Is it simply submit and wait? How long do I wait? If there are questions or I need to rewrite it, how does that happen? How would I give feedback that I think the comments regarding where and how it contradicts should go in a different section to simplify the description?

Again, hope all gets better and when you are able I look forward to hearing back, should you be so inclined. Vortex515 (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's fundamental policy, see WP:PSCI: we have to tell the reader it's pseudoscience (or pseudohistory or pseudoscholarship). We don't believe in "anything goes (as long as it is written on paper)".
 * Anything working against such principles is de facto banned from Wikipedia, i.e. removing the information that it is a pseudoscientific film stating bullcrap views.
 * You are neither the first nor the last who tries to remove such information, see the whole story at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_Genesis_History%3F&action=history
 * So, yeah, I have no idea who you are and whether you speak truthfully, but speaking from experience your edit has been weighted and found wanting. I mean: repeatedly, whether it was you or someone else.
 * The fact that you have donated money to the Wikimedia Foundation does not constitute leverage for edits. I'm in charge of content, not money, and this uncompromising attitude in respect to pseudoscience brought WMF lots and lots of money.
 * So, your beloved edits were performed ad nauseam and reverted each and every time by competent editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So, your beloved edits were performed ad nauseam and reverted each and every time by competent editors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems you are truly incapable of intelligent and reasonable reading comprehension. Your various rants are in no way germaine to my comment nor questions for help and guidance. Instead they are very juvenile, use juvenile language (i.e. "bullcrap") in place of reasoned responses, and I've learned from prior leadership positions that continuing such discussions are pointless.

Again, it is sad that you are struggling and feel the need to lash out at an individual, especially a new one trying to edit and help the community. Perhaps you are not as welcome to growing and assisting Wikipedia as I would hope others are in this online group. Based on your lack of professionalism and lack of self-control, I will not be surprised if you should feel the need to post a "last word" response instead of apologies, recants, and real responses to the real questions and goals I stated. You may do so without worrying if I'll cover it with any further follow-up.

Again, truly sorry you have so much angst and distrust against people that your initial response is to attack, accuse, and attribute propaganda motives to their actions. Perhaps, you will find some sense of direction and value in life that will allow you to operate in a truly advanced manner. I know this sounds harsh and for that I'm sorry. However, having trained many individuals for advanced leadership both in military and civilian professions for the past 25 years I know some people need to have these struggles exposed so they may truly develop into the leaders and people of influence they hope to be one day.

That's my hope and wish for you. For now, I'll try and seek guidance elsewhere from a properly qualified person and perhaps one day we will speak again on this community forum where I'll be able to rejoice with your growth and progress!

Again, if you respond in the same vein as previous responses, I'll no longer continue what could have been a helpful engagement, which instead you sidelined into a personal vendetta against some group and false attributions of motives for my work.

I hope for the best. We will either continue or we'll talk in a far future meeting. Vortex515 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your edits are wrong. You're asked to cope with this simple fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources
Please read Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15 February 2021 07:43:08 (UTC)

February 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Is Genesis History?, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Is Genesis History? shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)