User talk:Natorious

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barok777, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I use only one Wikipedia account. Why did you revert my last edit? Natorious (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:RS/AC is part of our WP:RULES. It's part of the package, take it or leave it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't violate any rules, actually to the contrary - the amateur who made a baseless statement citing some anonymous "scholar" who holds no credibility or credential violated the very terms you purport to adhere to; in WP:RS/AC: "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors". And what does any of this have to do with "sockpuppeting" anyway?? And who the hell are you to open an investigation on me?? Natorious (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three different accounts made strikingly similar edits during two weeks. That's all what I am saying at the sockpuppet investigation. And... you are fighting against top US and Israeli universities. Do you realize that you don't have any chance of winning this dispute? Wikipedia sides with Ivy Plus, Bar-Ilan University and Tel Aviv University. There they toe the same line as Collins. But that point was already granted when he got born. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I only got one account.. Quit your nonsense. I'm not fighting anyone, nor do I intend to. And there's no dispute. I wouldn't bother. I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for people to take important non-scientific questions seriously. Natorious (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, there is no dispute about the Book of Daniel being a 2nd century BCE composition, except in the realm of fundamentalists and true believers. We're not Debatepedia so we don't teach the controversy. That's enshrined in the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement about the dating has no evidence and cannot be determined Natorious (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You defined yourself as a research addict. Why don't you research the matter? E.g. ask Esther Eshel from BIU what the evidence is. Or read what she wrote about that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking homework assignments from you sonny. Human knowledge existed before Esther Eshel Natorious (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that the WP:ONUS would be upon me to prove that Ivy Plus got it right, you misunderstood the rules of Wikipedia. The WP:BURDEN is upon you, not upon me. You are the WP:FRINGE/PS WP:POV pusher. This isn't a level playing field, the sooner you learn it, the better. Wikipedia is very biased for WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Appeal to tradition is a fallacy. Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM, so you don't get to define the terms of the debate; we do, WP:RULES do. Something makes you think that your traditional religious authorities trump the authorities from Ivy Plus, BIU and TAU. Wikipedia just doesn't work that way. Who has the power to decide upon this historical fact? Mainstream Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful[edit]

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 <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 July 2019 15:24:38 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopaedia[edit]

Our NPOV policy means that we do not endorse any religion. Sorry, but if you can't live with that you need to avoid editing anything to do with religion. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste from User talk:Mishael707. Tgeorgescu (talk) 24 July 2019 15:24:38 (UTC)