User talk:Tgeorgescu/Archives/2023/April

Double posting at RSN

Why are you double posting the same comments from article talk pages at RSN? At minimum it is confusing and annoying to see multiple posts in a row from the same person at RSN responding to nothing whatsoever. RSN is for discussion, not monologues. Banks Irk (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: While it could be seen as gauche, nobody told me it's prohibited. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It serves no useful purpose. Banks Irk (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Banks Irk: There are facts and arguments which only become manifest due to research and thought, and these take time. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Request for civility

Please do not stalk me. More particularly, when I post somewhere on a discussion page, please do not follow me there and put in unrelated material. Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: Evidence (diffs}, please. See WP:ASPERSIONS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

* There are more eyes on you now than if you hadn't made this report. I am not seeing anything actionable here - if this is stalking/harassment, then I should hand back the keys to my account because I routinely click through to Users' contributions if one of their edits seem a bit suspect. I would withdraw this and carry on as if nothing happened. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not trying to make a big deal about this, but I'm really trying to get a general discussion going about sources for descriptions of the content of non-fiction texts going, regardless of any particular page. It seems a major gap in WP guidelines. If you want to contribute to that discussion, please do so positively. What would those guidelines best look like? Butterfly or Chuang Tzu? (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Butterfly or Chuang Tzu?: And, no, the above quote is not a substitute for diffs. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Gender and sexuality: Clarification request closed

Hello Tgeorgescu,

The clarification request about Gender and sexuality has been closed as answered with the following summary:

GENSEX does not generally apply to topics around sexual intercourse.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Free-will.

I will tell you @tgeorgescul, that I am not payed and only edit for the expirience and the enjoyment of it. I don't need money from it. I only want to add mostly edits about my local area, but I am deeply religious, and again I don't do this for pay. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@The Capitalist forever: I have never said that you are a paid editor. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

My apologies @tgeorgescul. I misunderstood your message at the teapot about editors getting paid and if 14 year olds could get paid. Sorry. The Capitalist forever (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey @tgeorgescul, I didn't know that saying that the Donald Trump article isn't neutral on the donald trump talk section is wrong. I've gotten my edits warned twice and deleted, I sort of confused why. Also seems like everyone else can state their opinion on edits since they are Democrat. The Capitalist forever (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@The Capitalist forever: You simply need to discuss the article, based upon WP:RS, instead of giving your own opinion upon political matters. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:52, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

This is word for word what I put in the talk. (caused 2nd warning) Do you think that it discuss to the article on Trump?:

"I don't believe he (Trump) damaged the democracy, I am more concerned about something being in the article about a good thing Trump did as president. It needs to be even between the two sides/opinions, making neutral. Please change this.

It's really difficult not knowing when you are violating a wikipedia rule, especially when you don't mean to, and mean no harm. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Capitalist forever (talk • contribs) 05:28, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence

Agreed? Doug Weller talk 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Yup, with the accent on "can", instead of "is". tgeorgescu (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah, found Evidence of absence which wasn't linked from Argument from ignorance which I found yesterday. Annoying that the article doesn't mention archaeology, where it's pretty easy to show that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.[1][2]. Doug Weller talk 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)