User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2021/February

My edit of the Josephus page

Hello Tgeorgescu,

Thanks for your message. To answer your questions:

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

I have not come here to do any of the above. I am passionate about ancient history and read many books on the subject. The book title I added to the Josephus page is an investigative work drawn from the work of respected scholars/historians, including: [Ronald Syme] [Birley] [Colenso]

I feel the book title I added is a legitimate addition to the further reading section on the Josephus page.

Thank you Adam Davis 83 (talk) 16:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: Colenso is dated (too old a source). The other two looked legit. However Davis, Henry is none of those three. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Yup, that means that WP:SPS and WP:FRINGE works are generally speaking blacklisted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I never said the author of the book I added was the individuals in the links I provided. I said the author of the book had produced an investigation that draws on the work of respected historians/classicists shown in the links. Colenso may be an old source, but the appropriateness of his work as used in the book depends on the context. If Colenso is considered too old a source, then are classical historians such as Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, etc., also too old to be counted?

Thanks

Adam Davis 83 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application.

Basically, self-published books by wannabe scholars are not acceptable as WP:RS.

In fact, this is the greatest lesson I learned as a Wikipedian: my own research is not allowed. Even if I publish it a lulu.com. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu But this isn't my own research. As for your statement, 'wannabe scholar', I do find that very condescending. From Wikipedia itself - A scholar is a person who pursues academic and intellectual activities, particularly those that develop expertise in an area of study. A scholar MAY also be an academic, who works as a professor, teacher, or researcher at a university or other higher education institution. Scholarship is about having something useful, interesting, or important to say and, saying it in ways able to be checked off by accepted scholarly practice. I don't think self-published work, should be blacklisted. Just look at Einstein before the Academy "discovered" him. The books we admire most, are mostly written by "professional writers" — not academics. Malcolm Gladwell. Michael Lewis. Ben Franklin.

Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: Yup, Wikipedia isn't a publishing channel for the next Einstein, he/she has to publish his/her papers elsewhere. If the next Einstein shows up here, his/her contributions will be deleted according to WP:NOR. Our house, our rules. You may choose to comply, if not, you will be booted out this website.

An academic has:

• Credentials (typically an earned PhD, another doctorate or a terminal degree from a properly accredited university);
• A paid position, typically as a full-time professor at an accredited university;
• Research output in reputable peer-reviewed journals (preferably ISI-indexed). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I never said Wikipedia was a publishing channel, it is an encyclopedia proving insightful information. Your comment was wannabe scholar as Wikipedia states, you DO NOT have to be an academic to be a scholar. The book I added has been published elsewhere and has reviews that describe the investigative content.

Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 20:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: That book is published by vanity press. If you insist, admins will show you the door. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I won't insist on adding that book - however, I don't believe it is published by a vanity press. From Wikipedia - A vanity press, vanity publisher, or subsidy publisher is a publishing house in which authors pay to have their books published. Amazon is not a vanity press. Amazon Publishing is just a publishing platform. They let you publish your book and they get a cut of book sales, which pretty much matches what any mainstream publisher would do.

Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: Published by Amazon does not comply with WP:RS requirements. If you do not seek to follow WP:RULES, there is no point in allowing you to edit further. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu Can you copy and paste where it specifically states 'published by amazon' does not comply? I am trying to understand your responses, as you have been incorrect on both previous occasions, i.e. definition of scholar and vanity press.

Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Your account till now has done only WP:SPS WP:SOAPboxing. I have reported your account for getting blocked. I mean: if you did have valid edits, I would let you be. But you have none. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: If you have the unrepentant view that you're allowed to WP:CITE Henry Davis, there is no other option than getting your account blocked. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I'm not sure how my account can be blocked if I don't continue adding that book to the Josephus page? I can not help that you were wrong about the definition of a scholar and vanity presses according to Wikipedia? Adam Davis 83 (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC) — Adam Davis 83 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Adam Davis 83: We have a word for that Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Wikipedia is not a pulpit for your conspiracy theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu I feel I must clarify my position. I felt that adding the book was fine, as it draws on the work of respected historians and classicists. It is NOT my book, nor is it MY theory, and, from what I can tell, the book is not trying to spread a "conspiracy theory", it is an investigation into scholarly information. If I have offended you by my pointing out what I viewed as inaccuracies regarding the rules that you felt related to my edit, then I am sorry. Your responses towards me have felt personal and attacking on your part, rather than professional. Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Adam Davis 83: Morals: these are the WP:RULES, you have to obey the rules like everybody else. Your book is not acceptable to Wikipedia. I've been editing long enough to know that for a fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Advice on accusing others of paid editing

I quote an administrator you were talking to: "Don't accuse someone of paid editing if you don't have any evidence".

Editshmedt (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Anthroposophy

Hi Tgeorgescu, you may have some thoughts to add at: Talk:Anthroposophy#Anthroposophy a philosophy ?. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Ten Commandments

Questions 1. Is this right to challenge on undo my changes? 2. Does Wikipedia use British/Canadian spelling over American English such as in neighbor in British English and Neighbor in American English? 3. Why is ok use anti-sematic terms for Rabbinic Judaism most Jews consider the term Talmudic Judaism as anti-Semitic? 4. Why reject me adding Karaite Judaism to the article? — Preceding 5. on the word don't why did you not wang to use a apostrophe on the word never heard of the word dont spelled withou an apostrophe in any english? unsigned comment added by Nukie2011 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nukie2011: Spelling should not be changed without discussion.

It does not say Talmudic Judaism, it says Talmud.

There is no WP:RS for Karaite.

That is only a ref name, so not visible in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Talk:David Editshmedit

Blocked, but I've messed up striking through at Talk:David somehow. Also the bottom thread can be hatted. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Fixed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. User:Ymblanter deleted one of his subpages almost immediately after I blocked, feel free to revert etc anything else. Doug Weller talk 11:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Editshmedt did not request unblocking. Either they made peace with it or they think their IPs are blocked (the IPs are blocked for anonymous users only). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

As I recall, they stopped before I blocked. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yup, you blocked them more than three days after their last edit. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

HistoryNerd1987

I noticed that you reverted HistoryNerd1987's vandalism in the Book of Isaiah. If this is a vandalism-only account, shouldn't it be blocked? Dimadick (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I don't know if it is a vandalism-only account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Moses

I'm not sure if this [1] is a good edit or not, but I'm no deep scholar on the topic. So, if you're interested in taking a look. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Prima facie OK, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Cheers! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

It's copy/paste from the Abraham article - the name Abraham has been changed to Moses. Please check the references. Achar Sva (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2021 (UTC)