Jump to content

User talk:tgeorgescu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Wikipedia has WP:RULES which govern how editors should edit, how should they behave and how conflict gets mediated. Everybody is entitled to occasional mistakes, but persisting in mistakes will get you blocked from editing. Our wish is, however, that WP:RULES breakers repent from violating our rules and become instead productive editors. The decision to obey our rules is always personal, but it has enormous consequences for one's activity inside Wikipedia. I cannot decide for you, but I can tell you that it is wise to obey our rules. So, it's not that I like to see you blocked. I would like that you learn from your mistakes and become a productive editor. But if you are not up to the task, you will be blocked. I cannot ban you, in fact there is a single editor able to ban you from Wikipedia, that editor is you. The key point about getting to read about our rules is changing your behavior. We want you to behave according to the rules of our encyclopedia, if you cannot behave you will be blocked or banned. I will report you to admins if it is clear to me that you don't want to comply with WP:RULES.

I only revert edits for which it is clear to me that they are WP:CB (speaking from the viewpoint of academic learning), deteriorate the article or violate WP:RULES. I don't revert if these are uncertain. I think that you need to make up your mind if you are for or against our WP:RULES. If you're against our rules and act on that, you'll soon find yourself in hot water. If your edits are WP:PAG-compliant, they will likely stay, otherwise every experienced editor will have to revert you. By saying this I am not aggressive, I just tell it as it is. (Dutchies don't beat around the bush, but bluntly tell you what's wrong.)[1] I'm blunt but not mean. I could appear mean, but in fact I am only defending the norms and values of this website. I am very harsh on bigots, but reasonable and conciliatory with reasonable people. With people which present themselves as reasonable, I am much more conciliatory than other experienced users. If I can reasonably give you the benefit of doubt, I will do it, otherwise I have a low tolerance for bullshit. I have only become an anti-bigotry vigilante because of the unending attacks of fundamentalists upon our secular encyclopedia. I am very tolerant with those who don't deride science/history/our encyclopedia. According to prisoner's dilemma, The strategy is simply to cooperate on the first iteration of the game; after that, the player does what his or her opponent did on the previous move. Depending on the situation, a slightly better strategy can be "tit for tat with forgiveness". I'm usually acting as the first line of defense: just because you fooled me it doesn't mean your edits will be accepted by other established editors.

The question is not so much whether Wikipedians should be tolerant or intolerant, but: tolerant with what? And: intolerant with what?

I am neither humble (thinking that nothing can be really known, so everything goes) nor cocky (thinking that I know everything).

I don't hate editors as persons; I hate rule-breaking. I consider that any editor can change his/her mind/behavior at any moment. Few edit warriors do that, but that's another matter. As long as you know when to stop, you can get away with almost anything at Wikipedia. It's not the mistake which is a matter of being blocked or banned, but persisting in that mistake. Exceptions: outing, child grooming, and legal threats. When the community thinks that you made a mistake, accept the judgment of the community.

If you get criticism compliant with WP:RULES, accept the criticism and comply with it. If you have started a conflict, stop the conflict and offer your excuses for it. If you seek to avoid blocks or topic bans through WP:SOCKS you will get banned from Wikipedia. We are tolerant, but not retarded.

I'm not absurd: if you give me WP:RS showing that you're right, I will write myself from your POV. Seriously, the deal is this: give me sources that you advocate a major academic POV and I will write from this POV. The article masturbation is replete with WP:RS/AC claims precisely because I listened to critics of the article. I mean: I did not oblige their wish to adulterate the medical consensus, but I have provided rock-solid sources for the medical consensus. That had nothing to do with me being mean or obstinate, but mainstream science simply wasn't on their side (and still isn't). Since I'm not in charge of the scientific consensus, they were barking at the wrong tree. I'm not a scientist; I have nothing to add to or subtract from mainstream science. I render it for what it is. So, even assuming I was prejudiced against their POV (since it does sounds like an outlier), there was no need of doctoring the medical consensus. They felt treated like outcasts, but even if I wished, I could not offer them a place at the table of mainstream science. There are many people who think they will change mainstream science through editing Wikipedia—but that is a completely wrong approach: Wikipedia is subservient to mainstream science, mainstream science isn't subservient to Wikipedia. What those people really asked is playing fast and loose with the facts of mainstream science. We cannot do that.

Wikipedia has a purpose, it has norms and values; those who violate these get blocked or banned. I am prepared to explain you these norms and values, otherwise to those that do not heed these I believe that giving the cat enough rope it will hang itself. But we're not a clique: everyone who earnestly obeys our WP:RULES may join us. (Yes, yes, Wikipedia has to have rules; we cannot run such a website without rules.)

If you are here to promote pseudoscience, extremism, fundamentalism or conspiracy theories, we're not interested in what you have to say. Imho, using Wikipedia to promote pseudoscience is worse than using it to promote criminal behavior (seen that definitions of what is a crime largely depend upon the country). For my contributions to Wikipedia I could get the death penalty in several countries (e.g. in North Korea for liberal-bourgeois propaganda, in Iran and Saudi Arabia for blasphemy, sorcery and LGBT-friendly propaganda—what Wikipedia sees as mainstream science, they see as propaganda; in totalitarian countries ideology trumps reality).

If you are here to complain about my edits in respect to porn addiction: there is no official document from WHO, AMA, APA, Cochrane or APA which would imply that sex/porn/masturbation addiction would be a valid diagnosis. None of that has anything to do with my own person, does it? WP:ACTIVISTS could not figure out if I am pro-porn or anti-porn, so they accused me of being both. Same applies to being pro-Christian and anti-Christian: some have accused me of being outright Antichristic, while others have accused me of writing ads for born-again Christians.

The idea that the Bible was copied 100% exactly, that it lacks any mistake and any contradiction, that it has not been severely contradicted by mainstream archaeology is bigotry, not Christianity. The definition of Christianity isn't "the Bible is without error".

In the long term, reasoned argument and good quality sources works, hysterical accusations of bias and malfeasance simply get you shown the door.[2]

— Guy Chapman

Remember: truth is my weapon and if you misbehave, I will use it against you. If you want to accuse me of something nasty, present evidence or shut up forever. I have great respect for truth. At the same time I am a mastermind at weaponizing truth. I like wiki-persecuting bigots, pseudoscientists and quacks. Do you think I'm mean? The watchdog must bite. That means that I'm not a fool, and I will report to admins the violations of our WP:RULES. It also means that I don't shy away from using mainstream scientific/scholarly works against cults, quacks, and pseudoscientists. It does not mean I violate your right to believe what you please. But here at Wikipedia you have to behave according to our own WP:RULES.

Blaming me for the fact that Wikipedia has rules that get enforced is deeply idiotic. I did not ban your pet theology from Wikipedia. I lack the power to do so. It is simply so that pushing fringe POVs is not acceptable to this encyclopedia.

The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.

Having your POV not touted by Britannica is not a violation of human rights.

Having your POV not touted by Larousse is not a violation of human rights.

Having your POV not touted by Wikipedia is not a violation of human rights. Wikipedia does not violate your right to believe what you please, it just does not assume by default that you're right.

If your edit gets deleted because the Ivy League finds it is rubbish, it is not discrimination, and it is nothing personal.

Wikipedia is crowdsourced, while Britannica and Larousse aren't. That's the only difference. For the rest all three have the same ideals and values.

You are welcome to edit here, but you must do so within our guidelines, asking you to do that is not bullying. Slatersteven (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Why the Dutch always say what they mean – BBC REEL on YouTube
  2. ^ Chapman, Guy (1 July 2015). "Homeopaths to Jimmy Wales: please rewrite reality to make us not wrong". Guy Chapman's Blahg. Archived from the original on 22 April 2016. Retrieved 16 January 2021.

ANI 2024

[edit]
Accusations of racism

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 202.40.137.199 (talk) 11:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this ANI notice. I'm definitely not in agreement with the IP—I've interacted with you enough to know there's no reason to suspect you of racism—but I wanted to point out something that could stave off similar false accusations. In this edit, you refer to Chinese people in a very generalized way. I think it's a phrasing thing, as you and I both know exactly what you meant and that it's not against Wikipedia policy to disparage the Chinese suppression and censorship of scientific scholarship. Generalizations are often interpreted in overly broad ways, as the IP did. Let me know if they pester you at all again, as I would be more than glad to testify against any such claim. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avoiding racism does not mean "speak no evil of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot".
If they want that their scientific research prospers, attacking objective criticism is not the way to do it. They should not be shooting the messenger, since admitting they have a problem would be the first step towards improvement. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of what I'm concerned about. Again, it's not what you're saying, but how you're phrasing it. When you refer to a they, that can be interpreted as Chinese people or Chinese scientists or the Chinese government. When using generalizing terms, you leave more room for someone to be hurt by your words, even if they are accurate and said without the intention of doing harm. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me tell you something: me, as a Romanian, and many Romanians I spoke to, have no problem in admitting that scientific research from Romania is crappy. I don't feel offended by it, and neither do most Romanians, since they know it's a real fact. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Anyway, that was just some advice about how to reduce the abrasiveness of future comments. Things you say have proved inflammatory before despite you not intending them as such, so I figured I could offer a perspective on how to avoid that. If you get bothered again for your principled stand on Chinese scientific scholarship, let me know. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents are that either the IP does not know what the word "racism" means, or the IP is throwing everything at the wall, hoping to stick. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu you said: "If they want that their scientific research prospers, attacking objective criticism is not the way to do it."
BUT, do you mean what you said HERE:
"Chinese medical scientists lack funds for performing research, lack freedom of speech, lack a culture of contradicting their peers if objective evidence so demands—they're basically educated that speaking truth to power is insanity. They know that criticizing TCM could make some CCP boss angry, and that would mean jail time. Totalitarianism is a ruthless game, and science is its victim. The PRC government is not interested whether TCM is effective, they just see it as a cash cow."
is "objective criticism"?
It is not only speaking evil of Mao, it is speaking evil of all Chinese medical scientists.
You have talked about the Cultural Revolution more than once. [1] [2] You are right that it is part of Chinese history. However, it happened almost fifty years ago, and the Chinese government officially admitted that it's a mistake:
Cultural Revolution#Repudiation and reform under Deng:
"Deng and Hu helped rehabilitate over 3 million "unjust, false, erroneous" cases. In particular, the trial of the Gang of Four took place in Beijing from 1980 to 1981, and the court stated that 729,511 people had been persecuted by the Gang, of whom 34,800 were said to have died.
In 1981, the Chinese Communist Party passed a resolution and declared that the Cultural Revolution was "responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the Party, the country, and the people since the founding of the People's Republic."
It is unacceptable for you to attack Chinese with a mistake that had already been admitted and corrected. I think you need to learn from the Chinese government and have the courage to admit and correct your own mistake. Even if you do not have that courage, you should STOP spreading inaccurate information about Chinese, and stop adding "content meant to attack, harass, threaten, or disparage certain people or groups based on nationality, race, ethnicity'. You need to read THIS. I do not know how many admin friends you have and how UNBLOCKABLE you are. You were able to get me blocked, but everyone should know who is in the wrong unless they are blind.
Science should be separated from politics. Traditional Chinese Medicine exists long before Mao's time. It has thousand years of history. It is your choice that you "have no problem in admitting that scientific research from Romania is crappy", but that does NOT mean you can spread inaccurate information by saying that "scientific research from China is crappy" and that "Chinese medical scientists lack blah, blah, blah." Such content is not tolerated by Wikipedia. 202.40.137.196 (talk) 07:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Vickers, Andrew; Goyal, Niraj; Harland, Robert; Rees, Rebecca (1998). "Do Certain Countries Produce Only Positive Results? A Systematic Review of Controlled Trials". Controlled Clinical Trials. 19 (2). Elsevier BV: 159–166. doi:10.1016/s0197-2456(97)00150-5. ISSN 0197-2456. It's like filtering water with a filter which does not stop anything from passing. The role of science is stopping bad stuff from passing for legit. It is not endorsing popular superstition.
For the Western context see Otto, Shawn Lawrence (2016). The War on Science: Who's Waging It, Why It Matters, What We Can Do About It. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Milkweed Editions. ISBN 978-1-57131-353-9. The difference being that in the West politicians and money did not win the war against science.
The Chinese medical scientists cannot be taken seriously as long as they continue to pander to TCM superstitions. That's not logically possible. And there's nothing racist or nationalistic or colonialistical about it.

If an Indian, American, British, Nigerian or Brazilian scientist makes an empirical claim about the body, they're expected to prove it, and that proof must be replicable. Why should it be different for Chinese scientists?
— User:WLU

Wikipedia isn't a billboard for WP:SOAPBOXING for alt-med. We hate alt-med. We don't hate Chinese people, but we deeply hate alt-med. And our boss, Jimmy Wales, explicitly endorsed it at WP:LUNATICS.
So, you are right that we hate TCM, and homeopathy, and Rolfing, and Reiki, and Ayurveda, and Unani, and chiropractic, and naturopathy, and so on. But this is not racial, ethnic, or religious hatred.
My puzzlement is not why you get offended by it, but why everybody doesn't already know that it is the official stance of Wikipedia.
Adepts of quackery get offended by publishing mainstream scientific information. We knew that, it's nothing new. What puzzles me is why they don't already know that Wikipedia opposes them.
You're not fighting against me, but against the system of Wikipedia. The whole system of Wikipedia is a well-oiled machinery meant to lambaste quackery.
You can't win this dispute, since Wikipedia endorsing TCM is completely unrealistic, and your definition of racism is completely fanciful. The definition of racism isn't "this guy hates quacks". As long as you continue to claim that, admins will regard your edits as some form of misplaced joke.
Lambasting TCM is not due to a few bad apples, but it is deeply ingrained into the system of Wikipedia. So, you have a wholly unrealistic view of Wikipedia, and you use the word "racism" in a meaning that is incomprehensible to us.
You see TCM as a matter of racial pride, Wikipedia sees it as medical claims which can be investigated by empirical science. And the verdict of science is merciless: TCM is mostly pseudoscience.
Criticizing the educational-scientific system from mainland China as promoting pseudoscience for political-economical reasons is not the same as criticizing Chinese people for racial reasons. You note that Deng has lambasted Mao. Well, to undue Mao's legacy, Deng should also have lambasted TCM. Precisely because the health of Chinese people is important, and should not be left in the hands of quacks.
Me, and generally speaking Wikipedia, also lambaste the Anthroposophic medicine, which gets taught at Western universities, including in Germany. So, you see, I do not lambaste quackery on racial grounds. I lambaste it because it is incompatible with mainstream medical science.
You claim that I lambaste TCM for racial reasons, but I pretty coherently lambaste quackery regardless of race and geographical location.
You accuse me of racial bias simply because you are waging war against science, and you have run out of valid arguments. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, tgeorgescu: you have spent 11 hours making 17 additions and alterations to your initial response here, with no further commentary from the IP in question. Last month, you received a CTOPS sanction that told you to stop this kind of behavior. The sanction is visible in the next section of your talk page. I would encourage you to just delete the IP's comments and move on. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahma Chellaney

[edit]

You edited this page before so I am urging you to keep a watch over it because apparently the subject himself is whitewashing this article to reduce any criticism and retain the article as a fansite. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: Sorry, I don't know much about Chellaney. I only objected once to calling him "conspiracy theorist" while the sources disagreed about that. I.e. he wasn't 100% right about the debt trap, but it wasn't a conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical reliability of the Gospels

[edit]

Could you take a look at Historical reliability of the Gospels and judge if I've got a point there, or that I'm just stubborn? Thanks, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: You have a point, but completely reverting isn't justified, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tgeorgescu&oldid=1254245181"