User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2022/August

Notice of Incident at Administrator's Noticeboard

Hello, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop edit war

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 Belshazzar, you may be blocked from editing. This is not the first time you unreasonably revert appropriate edits. Your actions have been destructive to the Wikipedia community. Lightest (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

That's the POV of WP:RANDY.

And of course, fundies and true believers will always see me as destructive for Wikipedia. They are pretty much the same people e-mailing mainstream Bible scholars in order to tell them they will burn in hell.

Creationists, climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, astrologers, homeopaths, covidiots, flat-earthers, holocaust deniers and many others agree with you. What you said is pretty much the same reasoning they use. According to them, their worldviews are also not rejected by Wikipedia because they are rejected by mainstream sources but because of all those biased Wikipedia editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

What the Dickens are you talking about?

There was nothing unconstructive in my edit to the page on views of evolution among religious groups. Whoever included that material did so without sourcing any of it; this is OR and was suitably excised.

If someone wants to advance materialist views of the origins of life/species in a didactic, dogmatic manner, they should do so with their own articles, not through a widely-available educational resource like Wikipedia (which for many also serves as a primary resource).

If you are a member of such a sorry bunch, which I presume is the case, or else you would not have bothered to revert my contribution, you should probably at least try citing your information first so that it can be assessed by others and possibly deemed less contentious. 62.253.69.202 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Creationists, climate change deniers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, astrologers, homeopaths, covidiots, flat-earthers, holocaust deniers and many others agree with you. What you said is pretty much the same reasoning they use. According to them, their worldviews are also not rejected by Wikipedia because they are rejected by mainstream sources but because of all those biased Wikipedia editors. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Was that actually meant to be a refutation of anything I said earlier? Doesn't seem like it. Either stop being disruptive or take your tepid attempts at being inflammatory elsewhere.62.253.69.202 (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not negotiating with you. If you don't behave, admins will block your IP.

Seen that the majority of your recent edits have been reverted by various established editors, you're in no position to make demands.

Your edits are not distinguishable from creationist trolling. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not too worried about that. But perhaps you should consider taking your own advice from now on. Just a thought. 62.253.69.202 (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, you're a hypocrite. 62.253.69.202 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)