Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Zwolle for his contributions to Wikipedia. I have to perform volunteer work in order to receive benefits from the Dutch Commune Zwolle. This leaves me totally free to choose for whom I do volunteer work and totally free to write as I please and whatever I please. The Commune exercises no control whatsoever upon my edits, and it would be illegal for them to do so. Seriously, if they try to influence my edits, I will immediately call the Police.

A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.

"For the fanatic, the Devil is the intellectual, because the intellectual has doubts." Paul Zarifopol

drs. Tudor Georgescu or T. Georgescu, BSc, M [1]

Master Editor IV
Master Editor IV



This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than twenty years.
My sweet sixteen, 23 December 2018.
This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

What Wikipedia is

I will give you the basic rule of Wikipedia: we have to find to the best of our abilities what the academic mainstream says and then kowtow to it. See WP:ABIAS. The basis of Wikipedia is kowtowing to mainstream science and mainstream history. You may disagree with our choice, but that's what Wikipedia is. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't.

Stated otherwise, Wikipedia is WP:RS-positivism and WP:CHOPSY-supremacism. For Wikipedia the gold standard is what they teach at Ivy League, that is the WP:NPOV view.

Wikipedia activity

This user is one of the 2600 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
This user has alternative accounts named
tgeorgesco, robot citare.

See Tgeorgescu - Edit Counter - XTools, Tgeorgesco - Edit Counter - XTools and Robot citare - Edit Counter - XTools. Just if you wonder: all these are my own accounts, but I have never used them together in order to violate WP:RULES and two of them are inactive for years. Tgeorgesco was mainly a French Wikipedia account, since my name sounds odd in French, and the other is a ro.wiki bot. Both identities are properly disclosed on their own wiki. The invention of the global account and the integration of the citation bot in ro.wiki made their use obsolete.

Creation date: User creation log - Wikipedia. My first edit: [1].

My specialism at Wikipedia is unwelcome news. That is, welcome for mainstream scientists, and unwelcome for the prejudiced public.

My agenda

My agenda is fairly straightforward: WP:CHOPSY and user:tgeorgescu/nobigots. None of it means importing an outside agenda, as defined by WP:ACTIVISM or WP:ADVOCACY.

According to quacks and wackos, I belong to a great technofascist project called Wikipedia. In respect to WP:LUNATICS, Wikipedia is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, I have no doubts about that. Except it's not just me against the woo peddlers, it's Wikipedia against the woo peddlers.

Wikipedia loves mainstream science, mainstream medicine, mainstream history, and mainstream media with a good reputation for fact checking. There are people who hate these, so they obviously hate Wikipedia.

My ideology

I don't defend a political ideology (party politics), but the "ideology" of WP:BESTSOURCES. Obviously, the best sources have norms and values written into them. But that isn't my problem.

I have no dog in the fights of: Cambridge vs. Oxford, Harvard vs. Yale, Protestants vs. Catholics, and Atheists vs. Christians. But I do have a dog in the fight of Ivy League Bible scholars against religious fundamentalists. And I do have a dog in the fight between mainstream religion scholars and fringe cults. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory. I'm arguing often against people who think that mainstream science is Ahrimanic and mainstream history is spiritually harmful.

Troll?

The only difference between me and a troll is that I defend academic learning ( WP:CHOPSY or WP:BESTSOURCES, take your pick), while trolls and activists seek to maim it and delete it from Wikipedia.

Juridical

I am not a party to the juridical problems of Paul Philippe of Romania, Gregorian Bivolaru, the Spiru Haret University, and of the Romanian Constitutional Bar. I have nothing to lose or to win if they lose a trial. Get the popcorn.

Debates

You might think that I am a lousy debater. (Because often I logically develop arguments very thoroughly, stating all their logical implications, and many people do not like that.) But I won the vast majority of my Wikipedical debates. And even when I lost such debates, very often the loss of my opponents has been much greater than my own loss. So, it might look as if I am spewing incomprehensible jargon and odd arguments, but I am a very effective Wikipedian. (When one is not accustomed to thinking philosophically, philosophical arguments are odd by default, according to them.) And I often prevail because I only add to articles information that can be reasonably construed as being in accordance with WP:RULES. Not claiming that I'm infallible, but I am mostly right about that. I am not always right, but I do seek to serve Wikipedia through all my edits.

Yup, my writing style is aphoristic, but I am not without logic. If you have read Rudolf Steiner, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov, Ramana Maharshi, Osho Rajneesh, etc., you will recognize my style. Although religiously/philosophically I am not upon the same page with them.

These being said, I'm not insensitive to good arguments, based upon the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. What might be a good argument elsewhere might not be a good argument at Wikipedia.

My wiki-anger is directed at the behavior, not at the person.

Admin friends

The admins are my friends so long as I obey the WP:RULES.

And of course I appear as a heavy-handed editor: I edit in areas rife with editors who misbehave, so trying to restore WP:RULES and order appears as blunt. To those who are epistemically irresponsible, I appear as an officer of the Thought Police.

Name confusion

I am not dr. Tudor V. Georgescu, I am drs. Tudor Al. Georgescu.

I have counted 13 of Tudor Georgescu in the phone book of Bucharest.

Books

  • Georgescu, Tudor (2000). Doctrina liberala. Revolutia conceptuala si centrul transcendent (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Semne. ISBN  978-973-654-035-6. Archived from the original on 2020-03-11.
  • Middel, Alex; Georgescu, Tudor (2008). Le Nobel, Bob (ed.). Alle wegen leiden naar... Roemenië! (in Dutch). London: Lulu.com.

Why do many outsiders hate me?

This is my answer to a Quora question:

In many countries if you exercise critical thinking you land in jail. Or you will get lynched by an angry mob.

So, yes, this is an actual answer to your real question, unlike others who misunderstood your question and were lecturing you that you cannot have freedom without critical thinking.

The question was: How does a lack of critical thinking cause personal freedom? To this question I have replied. I have answered you why showing evidence of critical thinking is an obstacle to personal freedom. It's a bad world out there and many regimes and many people hate the guts of those who display critical thinking skills.

A lot of people get extremely upset if you apply critical thinking to religious or political dogma.

In certain parts of the world, keeping mum about source criticism of the Koran is a matter of self-preservation.

In certain countries, keeping mum about the moral failings of their president is a matter of self-preservation.

Often, keeping mum that official ideology is at odds with reality is a matter of self-preservation. Telling that official propaganda lost contact with reality is risky.

Admins are hated by outsiders for taking action, I'm hated for my thoughts.

I'm not hated for breaking the WP:RULES, but for obeying them.

Disclaimer

I do not pretend to diagnose anyone, be them Wikipedian or not. I simply state my views upon paranoid rants as opinion privilege, without claiming that my statements would amount to a medical diagnosis.

Schizophrenia

I am a person with schizophrenia. Thanks to Risperidone, my rational thinking has been restored. Does that mean I am completely healed? Probably no. Due to the persistence of negative symptoms, my situation is technically not distinguishable from high functioning autism.

I also suffered from paranoia, so now I am biased against paranoid thinking and conspiracy theories. I might make sport of these, but I was myself afflicted by these in the past.

I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, and using the above information against me in disputes will be considered a gross violation of WP:NPA. Please do not do it, it won't be taken lightly by admins.

If you think that having schizophrenia is bad, needing to be taught lessons in objective knowledge, critical thinking, logic, and rationality by a person having schizophrenia is even worse. So, don't pity me. Pity all who are more irrational than me. I had to oppose people who are more hateful, spiteful, fanatical, extremist, and paranoid than this schizophrenic.

Morals: that's why I'm prone to think that people are sick or brainwashed rather than being inherently mean. So, I see those who attack us as victims rather than perpetrators. If this website can be seen as merciless it is because it deals in knowledge rather than anything else. And some POVs have mercilessly lost the game. No amount of pleading will make Wikipedia accept germ theory denialism as valid. It has lost the game, and we rightly shun it. It is not our task to be loving and caring of those who push such POVs, our task is to be epistemologically responsible. Of course, that is no reason to behave like jerks, but some POVs are shunned, and will remain shunned. We don't have to seek to pamper POVs which are epistemically doomed. So, yes, I think that some people are simply insane, [2] and unto the minds of others cults or ideologies do terrible things. Having an worldview is not the problem, having a fanatical worldview is.

Many people comparing their own epistemic responsibility with my epistemic responsibility will find out that the answer is not flattering, so they should quit comparing themselves to schizophrenics. It's not written in the stars that schizophrenics are dumber or more misinformed than they are.

No personal attacks

My simple mind could not understand the difference between "they have plagiarized" and "they were a plagiarist". Sorry for that.

Privacy is king

When someone says their username is a lie and their user page is a lie, you have to accept that without objections. Because privacy is king.

Difference between talk pages and articles

Wikipedia editors are allowed to promote the wildest fringe theories in the talk pages. As long as they do not enter that information into the articles, you should sit back and take a deep breath.

Atheism

If you seek to accuse me of violating WP:POLEMIC, please first read [2]. While this user page could be construed as an attack upon fundamentalism, my vitriol comes nowhere near the vitriol I have reported there, and got closed without action.

Accusing me of being an atheist is mystical delirium (i.e. a wacko pretends to read my mind and decide that I'm atheist). I think that the identification of agents of the New World Order, me in particular, is paranoid delirium. People who call me NWO agent are psychotics. Diatribes against NWO, Illuminati, Freemasons and Jews are paranoid schizophrenia.

I don't side with Christians, I don't side with anti-Christians, I side with Bible professors from the most reputable American universities.

I don't attack religion, like Richard Dawkins, but I like to cream religious fundamentalists. And I'm not even offensive about it, but defensive, I simply defend the integrity of Wikipedia as WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Modernism basically means the Enlightenment. And radically rejecting the Enlightenment means being anti-EU and anti-US.

My religion: I believe in two Jewish prophets ( Einstein and Spinoza). I recognize two Messiah: Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral) and Stanislav Petrov. Hint: if anyone in historical record has a believable historical claim of being the Savior of the human specie, they come closest to that.

I am a donor to the CIA blog. This explains my familiarity with Bart Ehrman's works.

I'm not a Bible scholar

I know several words of Ancient Greek, of Latin, and very few words of Ancient Hebrew. So, the irony is that many rambling fundamentalist POV-pushers are better qualified than me to perform WP:OR on the Hebrew Text or the Greek Text. If the standard of our debates were WP:OR, I could never win debates about Bible scholarship.

If people say "I have this religious belief", I have no authority of telling them to believe otherwise. If people say "My belief is science/history/sociology/etc.", that is a testable conclusion, and Wikipedians test it according to WP:VERECUNDIAM. So, yes, if you say "This is my religion and this is what I believe as a matter of religious faith", then I'm very tolerant. If you say "My holy book is logically, scientifically and historically faultless", then I'm merciless with such assertions. If you say "I don't eat pork, because of my own religion", fine, no problem with that. If you say "Eating pork once a week is unhealthy", you are expected to produce extremely strong WP:MEDRS in order to WP:V your claim.

The WP:CHOPSY view upon the Bible, in 1½ hours: SATAN'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE on YouTube. The view that Bible scholars are from Satan does exist, but Wikipedia considers it paranoid delirium.

Why endorse evolution

Mr. GIBERSON: When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face. And the Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it.

— Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve, npr.org

When intelligent design proponents will do empirical science instead of rhetorical ploys, the scientific community will listen. That day hasn't come yet. Phillip E. Johnson died before he could know the hypothesis of intelligent design. You see, nobody took care of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis.

Otherwise, I simply believe in the Creation theory of the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître.

I seek to align my own views to mainstream science, mainstream history, and mainstream archaeology. I do not seek to align mainstream science, mainstream history, and mainstream archaeology to my own views.

And this is the trick of science: even if scientists start by assuming a blatant falsehood, given time the scientific community will work its way out of that falsehood and reach valid insights. It happened e.g. with W.F Albright assuming that the Bible is trustworthy guide for archaeology. The scientific community initially got convinced by Albright, but that did not have the status of religious dogma. Through accumulating archaeological evidence, a scientific revolution happened in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. The Bible is no longer seen as historically accurate, even in its narratives that look a lot like historiography.

Ethnicity

According to DNA analysis I might have the following ethnicity: Kosovar, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, or Romanian. As combination of two ethnicities: Moldovan + Thessalonian Greek, or Hungarian + Ashkenazi Jew.

Drawing the conclusion: genetically I am preponderantly Romanian, with a smaller share linked to Israel (which could mean Druze, Samaritan, or Ashkenazi Jew, meaning Jews from Israel before the 20th century Aliyah).

What about my homeland? Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. I can love a country without feeling the need of doctoring the harsh truths about it. Inside this encyclopedia if you think that national pride trumps objective fact you will be booed off the stage.

I an not a nationalist, Hungarian, Romanian, Dutch, Jewish, or otherwise. If anything, I am an internationalist. For fellow Romanians who accuse me of treason:

A pune scopurile statului și ale națiunii mai presus de independența intelectuală și a pretinde totodată că ele sînt juste și morale este unul din tipurile de „trădare” pe care le denunță Benda.

— Andrei Pippidi, Julien Benda, Trădarea cărturarilor. Humanitas, București, 1993. p. 10.

In case you wonder, Disruptive editing: ethno-national advocacy, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct is a valid reason for indeffing editors. See [3].

I'm not anti-Romanian, I'm not anti-Hungarian either. I'm not anti-Ukrainian, I'm not anti-Russian either. I'm not anti-Israeli, I'm not anti-Palestinian either.

I do not know a lot about the history of Romania and I do not pretend to know a lot about it (I know more about the history of Ancient Israel than about the history of Romania). I only get involved in disputes about Romanian history when there is something fairly obvious to mention (such as wholeheartedly rejecting pseudohistory from being endorsed by Wikipedia) or when POV-pushers are misbehaving. I am dispassionate about the history of my own country and I love historians who keep a cool head and the debunkers of pseudohistory. I am not dispassionate about rejecting pseudohistory, which has no honorable place in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. So, yeah, my wiki-expertise is mostly about pseudohistory, rather than about positive history. For the most part, I'm not concerned with real facts about the history of Romania, but merely with stifling pseudohistory and overblown nationalist propaganda. Because crass, overblown propaganda is an insult to my intelligence. Nationalist activists lack the awareness that such propaganda makes them look around here like boorish idiots. And that coming across like boorish idiots is no way of honoring their own country. They lack the awareness that among educating people their talking points look silly and ridiculous. They think they aggrandize their own nation through Holocaust denialism. While for educated people that is a good reason for avoiding them.

Opposing quackery such as acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine does not make me a racist. Why?

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

Cracking my PC

Hack tools used against my PC will be reported to Moscow.

Swatting me will likely be regarded as (attempted) international terrorism. US citizens who try it will be lifted from their beds by the FBI.

Social media

  • I have a Twitter account since 9 October 2021
  • My LinkedIn account is severely outdated due to being unused
  • My Facebook account is mostly unused (I briefly log in once in a while)
  • My Wikia (Fandom) account is largely unused
  • I do use my YouTube account for messages
  • If I did IRC that was many years ago, and I no longer do. I never did IRC in respect to Wikipedia.

So, if you read something by Tudor Georgescu on social media (WMF servers excepted) it's a 90% chance that it is from somebody else having the same name.

I don't beat around the bush, but I don't have a foul mouth either. So, offline attacks which use a foul mouth or employ extreme or vicious slander/libel are a joe job. When I'm angry, I seek to answer intelligently, instead of uttering obscene slurs. (Yup, it works much better than "Take a deep breath.")

I have IPVanish as VPN. But, no, I cannot edit Wikipedia through it, since it is globally blocked. I recently got Google One VPN, but the same applies to it.

About the joe job: I recently often lose LAN connectivity, so it's quite possible that hacking attempts are ongoing. I use a professional firewall solution, but you never know. I wasn't hacked yet, but it surely can happen. Now I am triple firewalled and triple NAT-ed. AFAIK someone is bypassing my firewall and performing portscans through the NAT, that's all they can do, and it crashes my LAN. I think this fixed it: "firewall: do not emit link-local address on IPv6 network outbound NAT".

Google has announced me today that 50 of my passwords were pwned. Google didn't know my Wikipedia password, and Have I Been Pwned: Check if your email has been compromised in a data breach says it was not pwned. The website does not list some of my e-mail addresses as pwned, although Google says they were pwned. The leak included long, complicated passwords which cannot be bruteforced.

And, yup, to get a 0-day exploit for my firewall, one would have to pay a fortune. And yup, one would need 0-days for three different firewalls.

For the checkusers

I will soon get a new modem. That means my IPs will change. I hope I don't get DS-Lite, but as I will be editing mostly through IPv6, that won't be a big problem. If you're asking why do you see only one IP, see this.

Wikipedia isn't Wikileaks

I have understanding for people who risk going to jail for contributing to Wikileaks. But I have no understanding for people who risk torture and going to jail for the privilege of citing mainstream media inside Wikipedia.

Here is why: suppose that same conditions apply in the West for citing mainstream media, except that it becomes a privilege. Every citizen who wants this privilege has to pay a hundred dollars per month. This isn't a big sacrifice to ask for, but I'm afraid that the vast majority of Western people would simply refrain from citing mainstream media, instead of paying a hundred dollars per month for such privilege.

Barnstars and such

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

AIW


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!-- Hu12 ( talk) 14:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is for all your tireless and heroic efforts last night defending the article Yahweh from our perennial troll friend Wittgenstein123, even in the face of some seriously deranged (and somewhat incomprehensible) attacks on your personal character. I am sure he will probably return eventually, but, for now, I just wanted to let you to know how much I appreciate your work. Thank you so much! -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for working to fend off the latest in a long line of Bible literalists over at Belshazzar, as well as your tireless defense of keeping this article aligned to what academics believe over the last few years. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 22:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your help with the translation project! Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar
For acting reasonably even when doing so aggravates the unreasonable. John Carter ( talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The LGBT Barnstar
For the work done in editing the articles regarding the LGBT community and for the firm activity against bigots inside Wikipedia. Alexandru M., 8 februarie 2017, 12:41 (EET)
Who I am

Who I am

Romanian citizen by birth, Dutch subject by naturalization (double nationality, thus).

Diplomas:

- 1991 Baccalaureate [3] and Professional Qualification Certificate from Informatics Lyceum no. 1 Bucharest (now called Tudor Vianu National College of Computer Science);

- 1999 License in Philosophy from University of Bucharest (comparable to Master of Arts);

- 2004 Propedeutic diploma in Sociology from University of Amsterdam;

- 2007 Bachelor of Science in Sociology (BSc), University of Amsterdam. Specialization: work, organizations and policy sociology.

- 2008 Obtained permission to bear the title drs. [4] title from Informatie Beheer Groep, the Dutch institution which recognizes foreign diplomas.

Member of the Dutch Sociological Association

Member of Mensa Netherlands and Mensa Romania, which belong to Mensa International, Ltd. [5]

Member of Dutch Society Against Quackery.

Member and friend of File Threads Database. FTD has been replaced by SpotNet.

Spoken languages: Romanian, English, French, Dutch (level 4, now called level B2, according to diploma NT2-II, do not confuse it with Wikipedia:Babel level 4, which would mean native or near-native speaker).

Reads and understands: Italian and a bit of Spanish.

Favorite authors: M. Heidegger, H.G. Gadamer, C.G. Jung, Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom.

Religious qualifications: Bible knower (in respect to the literal meaning of the verses; through self-study). From a Sola Scriptura perspective, I am a god and a Son of God.

Hacker (hobbyist) (hardware modder; I am no cracker [6] and no haxor, since my identity as hacker is based upon hacking the Device Configuration Overlay for certain hard discs). Accordingly, my psychological profile is listed on the following sites: Hacker's Manifesto, A Cyberpunk Manifesto.

Online references: from Dan A. Lazarescu (Ad-Vitam Sovereign Grand Commander) and from Lucian Gh. Iordanescu (Fr. Hermes)

My ideal for Wikipedia: academic learning in the image and likeness of Ivy Plus.

Briefly: I am committed, for the most part, much more to truth than to tribe. For The True Believer I'm from Satan with a mission to deny WP:THETRUTH. E.g. Napoleon Săvescu, who isn't a Wikipedian, has harassed me outside of Wikipedia for my edits concerning history and religion (yup, it isn't harassment if you don't tell it to the Police). I don't know if he realizes, but his criticism of my edits boils down to this: the historical method is the most pestilential doctrine ever vomited out of the jaws of hell. [7] [8] [9] Because the historical method, as practiced by WP:CHOPSY, necessarily leads to what he sees as defilement of the history and religion of my native country. What he sees as defilement is simply academic-level history writing. WP:CHOPSY do not pander to piety and neither does that Wikipedia. If all reputable universities have plonked him, it is not our task to WP:RGW. And I am certainly no traitor of my country merely because I state that he got plonked. If he got plonked it is his fault, not my fault.

If your basic complaint about my edits is your professor ran over my dogma, you are completely pitiful and pathetic. We are unapologetically in favor of the academic consensus, so you don't belong here. As Neil Asher Silberman stated, what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history.

The scientific method and the historical method do not hate religion. There is no hate of ants required in order to crush ants nests with a bulldozer. Modern science and post-Enlightenment historiography destroy the intellectual clout of traditional/fundamentalist religion. If you want to know what I feel: I am annoyed by their ceaseless attacks upon Wikipedia, but I feel compassion/pity for their own religion.

If you think that the above violates WP:POLEMIC, we already have WP:NONAZIS and there should be WP:NOBIGOTS. Fundamentalist POV-pushers are a problem in religion articles and somebody has to tell them clearly that they do not belong here. Sorry if it seems like vitriol, this is simply the conclusion of an ongoing fight against bigoted vandals and true believers. ... Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. ... I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challenging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resource since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. KillerChihuahua.

My Wikipedia edits in a few words: conservatively mainstream academic POV. This does not mean that I would be socially conservative. I am not politically active, but I find that classical liberalism is a good idea. What about feminism? You may consider me a pro-life and pro-porn conservative feminist. (Yup, I don't support abortion, but I don't support christofascism either.) Politically, you could consider me a tolerant conservative: I have conservative values, but I am tolerant of people who don't. My models are Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. That does not mean that I would blindly endorse everything they did or stood for. For me the representatives of the liberal Western world are Reagan, Thatcher and Bush 41. Although not politically active, I'm a Dutch conservative like People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. Which in US would be called liberals. Hint: PPFD voted in favor of gay marriage. You could call me a neoliberal centrist, although I am a socially and ecologically minded neoliberal (as worldview, but not politically engaged).

If you think supporting Reagan is a problem, learn that I don't see much difference (ideologically) between him and Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Anyway, that applies to a time when Noam Chomsky was right that Republicans and Democrats were two wings of the same party. As one Quoran has put it, the Clintons should be considered Reagan-era Republicans.

For me "conservatives" mean rational people who love science, arts, scholarship, and believe in classical liberalism. I don't construe Christian nationalism to mean conservatism.

I am never opposed to rendering objective facts and I do not happily delete factual information, even if it fails WP:N.

Skeptical POV

While I do have a POV supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, I do not perform WP:MEAT edits for skeptics' associations. I am my own man in respect to how I edit Wikipedia.

A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with

A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with

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.) [10] 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. [11]

— Guy Chapman

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile." [12]

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.

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)


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.

April Fools' joke

April Fools' joke

— Knock, knock.

— Who's there?

— We're missionaries.

— What do you want?

— We preach the word of Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and Darwin.

Why am I a god and a Son of God?

Why am I a god and a Son of God?

Warning

According to Psalms 82:6, all human beings are gods and Sons of God. [13] According to John 10:33-36, wherein John is quoting Jesus Christ's own words, all human beings who heard the Scripture talking to them (e.g. heard the Scripture being preached by a priest or pastor inside a church) are gods. According to Acts 17:28, all human beings are the offspring of God (Elohim, YHWH). Till here this is simply reading what the Bible has to say, literally, without any kind of "interpretation" (other than the purely literal one). The Bible is a print-published source, peer reviewed by Dr. Jerome of Stridonium and Dr. Martin Luther (they established two different canons for the Bible; both such canons regard as valid and authoritative all verses quoted in this argument).

All humans are thus gods and Sons of God. I am a human being (and I heard the Scripture being preached in churches), therefore I am a god and a Son (offspring) of Elohim (YHWH). This is a valid syllogism based upon assumptions derived from the Bible. Does it count as interpolation? Since Sir Francis Bacon [14] affirmed that syllogisms are no tool meant to increase our knowledge (or: science), we may consider that performing a syllogism upon some assumptions is not interpolation. This is thus encyclopedic knowledge according to Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. [15] Not.

By the way, Genesis 6:2, 4 and Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 speak about the Sons of God (using a capital letter is justified, since the Hebrew writing does not have capital letters, thus as far as the Bible authors are concerned "sons of God" and "Sons of God" are one and the same "thing", or the same idea). Therefore the Bible says that God has more than one Son.

So, I do not claim such titles only for myself [16], but for everybody else as well, because so says the Word of God expressed in the Holy Bible. The good news of the Bible tells you that you are a living god, making you thus aware of your divine nature.

I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible. Therefore, I make it more clear: the above is not my opinion about the Bible, but the opinion of the Bible about me. Is it absurd? Yes. Is it my absurdity? No.

If you think that the trick would have worked for Jesus, go to the closest synagogue and tell the Jews that you are God simply because you can cite Psalms 82:6, and see how that works. Hint: Jesus's answer was just too smart and subtle to be understood by an angry mob of blasphemers hunters. And quite probably no one knew it by rote. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as you know it did not exist yet. So: which Bible? There was no Bible, there was the Pentateuch and a bunch of other writings. You call it Bible, for them it was not biblical Scripture. Was it an important Jewish writing? Yes. But regarding it as part of the Bible is anachronistic for Jesus's own time.

If you want to know what I think of Christianity: objectively speaking, rationally, there isn't a compelling reason for either adhering to or rejecting Christianity. As Søren Kierkegaard understood, joining and leaving Christianity are utterly subjective decisions.

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

About the Bible

Fanciful historians have no idea that Harvard professors teach the following about the Bible/Christianity:

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

This POV is enacted all across Wikipedia and you will be crushed if you oppose it. We do not need jokers who deride academic learning.

Recipe: historical method + Bible... and the fundies will cry "Blasphemy!" History well-done and fundamentalism well-done leave no other option. None of that has anything to do with me. It's only a matter of time till fundamentalists will realize that the historical method is the enemy of their faith. Probably stuff for a book called The Academic Learning and Its Enemies.

One day they will say like Luther, The historical method is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. [17]

Should we compare what gets taught at Harvard about the Bible/Christianity with the idiosyncrasies of bigoted agitators? By design Wikipedia chose for Harvard and against rendering fundamentalist theology as objectively true.

I write about Christianity sine ira et studio: I don't write only favorable stuff, nor only unfavorable stuff, but I write from an outside and disinterested perspective, based upon sources favored by WP:CHOPSY. Of course, POV-pushers construe this as mockery of their own religion, but Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't. There is a distinction which some people don't get: I do not cultivate mockery of religion, I cultivate higher academic learning about religion. Most of the time, I simply report what WP:CHOPSY Bible professors say about the Bible, both good news and bad news. At David I bring the bad news, but at Christ Myth Theory I bring the good news. David and Jesus have historically existed, that's by and large not the problem with the historicity of the Bible.

Why?

As they say, "The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys". I cannot afford to buy cars, planes and yachts, so my toys are ideas.

For intellectuals ideas (including religious dogmas) are toys. Your religion is for us a provider of toys. One man's religion is another man's laughing stock. Again: Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't construe as mockery what I write here about your religion.

I'm not speaking only of myself, I'm speaking about intellectuals in general. There was a pastor saying he had a child on a youth camp, and that child was asking nasty (read: intelligent) questions. And that pastor strongly punched the kid in his chest saying: "What do you think, that this is only a game?" Yes, we intellectuals play the game passionately, most of us with honesty, but in the end it's just a game. The scientific and social progress are based upon declaring that ideas are not sacred, but toys for intellectuals. We have merely human ideas, and those who pretend their ideas have been granted by God or gods are primitive cheaters. An idea obtained through reading or hearing is a merely human idea, regardless of whether there is a God.

Morals: if your religion is ruined by a kid asking smart questions, it is not much of a religion.

Hint: there is already Strathern, Paul (2002). Dr. Strangelove's Game. ISBN  978-0-14-029986-1. saying that economics is in the end a game.

Footnotes

  1. ^ I do not formally have the legal right to bear the title "Master of Arts" together with my name. However, MA is the common (customary) English translation of my title "license in philosophy" from University of Bucharest, Romania. Also, MA would be the proper English translation of my Dutch title drs., since this title has been replaced with MA following the Bologna Process, in so far as philosophy graduates are concerned. I do have the legal right to bear the title BSc together with my name. I use the degree M as stipulated by Dutch rules for translating pre-Bologna Dutch titles to post-Bologna international degrees, which do not allow me to use MA, but I have to use M instead. A combination of M with BSc is allowed according to Drs. A Jansen, MBA?, since they are different titles (i.e. my BSc was not a prerequisite for obtaining my M).
  2. ^ E.g. I think this book is a product of mystical delirium: Mayer, Thomas (2022). Covid Vaccines from a Spiritual Perspective. Raubling, Germany: CLAIRVIEW BOOKS. ISBN  978-3-910465-00-8.
  3. ^ The Romanian baccalaureate is no BA or BSc, it counts as high-school diploma, i.e. the diploma for finishing general and mandatory secondary education.
  4. ^ I.e., doctorandus; drs. is equal to MA in the Bachelor/Master system, in so far as philosophy graduates are concerned. The Netherlands recently introduced the Bachelor/Master system (according to the Bologna Process); in such system change the old title doctorandus was replaced by the degrees MA and MSc, which are equal in value with drs. My drs. title is genuine and legally recognized by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it does not mean dr.mult. (multiple PhD degrees).
  5. ^ See membership card and membership card (verso).
  6. ^ "The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them." E.S. Raymond How To Become a Hacker
  7. ^ Mead, James K. (1 January 2007). Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes. Presbyterian Publishing Corp. p. 31. ISBN  978-0-664-22972-6.
  8. ^ Hesketh, Ian (3 October 2017). Victorian Jesus: J.R. Seeley, Religion, and the Cultural Significance of Anonymity. University of Toronto Press. p. 97. ISBN  978-1-4426-6359-6.
  9. ^ Tearle, Oliver (29 September 2016). The Secret Library: A Book-Lovers' Journey Through Curiosities of History. Michael O'Mara Books. p. 90. ISBN  978-1-78243-558-7.
  10. ^ Why the Dutch always say what they mean – BBC REEL on YouTube
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ Star Trek - First Contact (1996) Moviesoundclips.net. Rikeromega3 Productions 1999-2013. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
  13. ^ As previously noticed by Alan Watts ~ The bible is a dangerous book on YouTube.
  14. ^ Baron of Verulam, Viscount of St. Alban.
  15. ^ It's just tongue in cheek; don't take it seriously. Actually, you should never WP:VERify claims to WP:PRIMARY religious sources.
  16. ^ ... since I am not delusional about it. All I did is properly read what the Bible has to say about this issue. I am guilty of no more than plain reading. If a reading disability is preventing you from understanding the literal meaning of these Bible verses, I recommend you the program Kurzweil 3000. If theologians had such a program some thousands years ago, a lot of churchly dogmas would have been written substantially differently from today's version.
  17. ^ Luther, Martin (1848). The Table Talk Or Familiar Discourse of Martin Luther. D. Bogue. p. 164.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Tgeorgescu&oldid=1218958118"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$ This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Zwolle for his contributions to Wikipedia. I have to perform volunteer work in order to receive benefits from the Dutch Commune Zwolle. This leaves me totally free to choose for whom I do volunteer work and totally free to write as I please and whatever I please. The Commune exercises no control whatsoever upon my edits, and it would be illegal for them to do so. Seriously, if they try to influence my edits, I will immediately call the Police.

A note to conspiracy theorists: If you think that the world is controlled by some Satanic plot by the Communists, Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, Catholic Church, lizard people, greys, or whatever, keep in mind Wikipedia would be a front for them if such a conspiracy exists. You're not gonna win here, it's no trouble to block you. Just walk away.

"For the fanatic, the Devil is the intellectual, because the intellectual has doubts." Paul Zarifopol

drs. Tudor Georgescu or T. Georgescu, BSc, M [1]

Master Editor IV
Master Editor IV



This user has been editing Wikipedia for more than twenty years.
My sweet sixteen, 23 December 2018.
This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

What Wikipedia is

I will give you the basic rule of Wikipedia: we have to find to the best of our abilities what the academic mainstream says and then kowtow to it. See WP:ABIAS. The basis of Wikipedia is kowtowing to mainstream science and mainstream history. You may disagree with our choice, but that's what Wikipedia is. It is you who have a choice, Wikipedia doesn't.

Stated otherwise, Wikipedia is WP:RS-positivism and WP:CHOPSY-supremacism. For Wikipedia the gold standard is what they teach at Ivy League, that is the WP:NPOV view.

Wikipedia activity

This user is one of the 2600 most active English Wikipedians of all time.
This user has alternative accounts named
tgeorgesco, robot citare.

See Tgeorgescu - Edit Counter - XTools, Tgeorgesco - Edit Counter - XTools and Robot citare - Edit Counter - XTools. Just if you wonder: all these are my own accounts, but I have never used them together in order to violate WP:RULES and two of them are inactive for years. Tgeorgesco was mainly a French Wikipedia account, since my name sounds odd in French, and the other is a ro.wiki bot. Both identities are properly disclosed on their own wiki. The invention of the global account and the integration of the citation bot in ro.wiki made their use obsolete.

Creation date: User creation log - Wikipedia. My first edit: [1].

My specialism at Wikipedia is unwelcome news. That is, welcome for mainstream scientists, and unwelcome for the prejudiced public.

My agenda

My agenda is fairly straightforward: WP:CHOPSY and user:tgeorgescu/nobigots. None of it means importing an outside agenda, as defined by WP:ACTIVISM or WP:ADVOCACY.

According to quacks and wackos, I belong to a great technofascist project called Wikipedia. In respect to WP:LUNATICS, Wikipedia is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, I have no doubts about that. Except it's not just me against the woo peddlers, it's Wikipedia against the woo peddlers.

Wikipedia loves mainstream science, mainstream medicine, mainstream history, and mainstream media with a good reputation for fact checking. There are people who hate these, so they obviously hate Wikipedia.

My ideology

I don't defend a political ideology (party politics), but the "ideology" of WP:BESTSOURCES. Obviously, the best sources have norms and values written into them. But that isn't my problem.

I have no dog in the fights of: Cambridge vs. Oxford, Harvard vs. Yale, Protestants vs. Catholics, and Atheists vs. Christians. But I do have a dog in the fight of Ivy League Bible scholars against religious fundamentalists. And I do have a dog in the fight between mainstream religion scholars and fringe cults. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory. I'm arguing often against people who think that mainstream science is Ahrimanic and mainstream history is spiritually harmful.

Troll?

The only difference between me and a troll is that I defend academic learning ( WP:CHOPSY or WP:BESTSOURCES, take your pick), while trolls and activists seek to maim it and delete it from Wikipedia.

Juridical

I am not a party to the juridical problems of Paul Philippe of Romania, Gregorian Bivolaru, the Spiru Haret University, and of the Romanian Constitutional Bar. I have nothing to lose or to win if they lose a trial. Get the popcorn.

Debates

You might think that I am a lousy debater. (Because often I logically develop arguments very thoroughly, stating all their logical implications, and many people do not like that.) But I won the vast majority of my Wikipedical debates. And even when I lost such debates, very often the loss of my opponents has been much greater than my own loss. So, it might look as if I am spewing incomprehensible jargon and odd arguments, but I am a very effective Wikipedian. (When one is not accustomed to thinking philosophically, philosophical arguments are odd by default, according to them.) And I often prevail because I only add to articles information that can be reasonably construed as being in accordance with WP:RULES. Not claiming that I'm infallible, but I am mostly right about that. I am not always right, but I do seek to serve Wikipedia through all my edits.

Yup, my writing style is aphoristic, but I am not without logic. If you have read Rudolf Steiner, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Omraam Mikhaël Aïvanhov, Ramana Maharshi, Osho Rajneesh, etc., you will recognize my style. Although religiously/philosophically I am not upon the same page with them.

These being said, I'm not insensitive to good arguments, based upon the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. What might be a good argument elsewhere might not be a good argument at Wikipedia.

My wiki-anger is directed at the behavior, not at the person.

Admin friends

The admins are my friends so long as I obey the WP:RULES.

And of course I appear as a heavy-handed editor: I edit in areas rife with editors who misbehave, so trying to restore WP:RULES and order appears as blunt. To those who are epistemically irresponsible, I appear as an officer of the Thought Police.

Name confusion

I am not dr. Tudor V. Georgescu, I am drs. Tudor Al. Georgescu.

I have counted 13 of Tudor Georgescu in the phone book of Bucharest.

Books

  • Georgescu, Tudor (2000). Doctrina liberala. Revolutia conceptuala si centrul transcendent (in Romanian). Bucharest: Editura Semne. ISBN  978-973-654-035-6. Archived from the original on 2020-03-11.
  • Middel, Alex; Georgescu, Tudor (2008). Le Nobel, Bob (ed.). Alle wegen leiden naar... Roemenië! (in Dutch). London: Lulu.com.

Why do many outsiders hate me?

This is my answer to a Quora question:

In many countries if you exercise critical thinking you land in jail. Or you will get lynched by an angry mob.

So, yes, this is an actual answer to your real question, unlike others who misunderstood your question and were lecturing you that you cannot have freedom without critical thinking.

The question was: How does a lack of critical thinking cause personal freedom? To this question I have replied. I have answered you why showing evidence of critical thinking is an obstacle to personal freedom. It's a bad world out there and many regimes and many people hate the guts of those who display critical thinking skills.

A lot of people get extremely upset if you apply critical thinking to religious or political dogma.

In certain parts of the world, keeping mum about source criticism of the Koran is a matter of self-preservation.

In certain countries, keeping mum about the moral failings of their president is a matter of self-preservation.

Often, keeping mum that official ideology is at odds with reality is a matter of self-preservation. Telling that official propaganda lost contact with reality is risky.

Admins are hated by outsiders for taking action, I'm hated for my thoughts.

I'm not hated for breaking the WP:RULES, but for obeying them.

Disclaimer

I do not pretend to diagnose anyone, be them Wikipedian or not. I simply state my views upon paranoid rants as opinion privilege, without claiming that my statements would amount to a medical diagnosis.

Schizophrenia

I am a person with schizophrenia. Thanks to Risperidone, my rational thinking has been restored. Does that mean I am completely healed? Probably no. Due to the persistence of negative symptoms, my situation is technically not distinguishable from high functioning autism.

I also suffered from paranoia, so now I am biased against paranoid thinking and conspiracy theories. I might make sport of these, but I was myself afflicted by these in the past.

I am aware of WP:NOTTHERAPY, and using the above information against me in disputes will be considered a gross violation of WP:NPA. Please do not do it, it won't be taken lightly by admins.

If you think that having schizophrenia is bad, needing to be taught lessons in objective knowledge, critical thinking, logic, and rationality by a person having schizophrenia is even worse. So, don't pity me. Pity all who are more irrational than me. I had to oppose people who are more hateful, spiteful, fanatical, extremist, and paranoid than this schizophrenic.

Morals: that's why I'm prone to think that people are sick or brainwashed rather than being inherently mean. So, I see those who attack us as victims rather than perpetrators. If this website can be seen as merciless it is because it deals in knowledge rather than anything else. And some POVs have mercilessly lost the game. No amount of pleading will make Wikipedia accept germ theory denialism as valid. It has lost the game, and we rightly shun it. It is not our task to be loving and caring of those who push such POVs, our task is to be epistemologically responsible. Of course, that is no reason to behave like jerks, but some POVs are shunned, and will remain shunned. We don't have to seek to pamper POVs which are epistemically doomed. So, yes, I think that some people are simply insane, [2] and unto the minds of others cults or ideologies do terrible things. Having an worldview is not the problem, having a fanatical worldview is.

Many people comparing their own epistemic responsibility with my epistemic responsibility will find out that the answer is not flattering, so they should quit comparing themselves to schizophrenics. It's not written in the stars that schizophrenics are dumber or more misinformed than they are.

No personal attacks

My simple mind could not understand the difference between "they have plagiarized" and "they were a plagiarist". Sorry for that.

Privacy is king

When someone says their username is a lie and their user page is a lie, you have to accept that without objections. Because privacy is king.

Difference between talk pages and articles

Wikipedia editors are allowed to promote the wildest fringe theories in the talk pages. As long as they do not enter that information into the articles, you should sit back and take a deep breath.

Atheism

If you seek to accuse me of violating WP:POLEMIC, please first read [2]. While this user page could be construed as an attack upon fundamentalism, my vitriol comes nowhere near the vitriol I have reported there, and got closed without action.

Accusing me of being an atheist is mystical delirium (i.e. a wacko pretends to read my mind and decide that I'm atheist). I think that the identification of agents of the New World Order, me in particular, is paranoid delirium. People who call me NWO agent are psychotics. Diatribes against NWO, Illuminati, Freemasons and Jews are paranoid schizophrenia.

I don't side with Christians, I don't side with anti-Christians, I side with Bible professors from the most reputable American universities.

I don't attack religion, like Richard Dawkins, but I like to cream religious fundamentalists. And I'm not even offensive about it, but defensive, I simply defend the integrity of Wikipedia as WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia based upon WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Modernism basically means the Enlightenment. And radically rejecting the Enlightenment means being anti-EU and anti-US.

My religion: I believe in two Jewish prophets ( Einstein and Spinoza). I recognize two Messiah: Vasily Arkhipov (vice admiral) and Stanislav Petrov. Hint: if anyone in historical record has a believable historical claim of being the Savior of the human specie, they come closest to that.

I am a donor to the CIA blog. This explains my familiarity with Bart Ehrman's works.

I'm not a Bible scholar

I know several words of Ancient Greek, of Latin, and very few words of Ancient Hebrew. So, the irony is that many rambling fundamentalist POV-pushers are better qualified than me to perform WP:OR on the Hebrew Text or the Greek Text. If the standard of our debates were WP:OR, I could never win debates about Bible scholarship.

If people say "I have this religious belief", I have no authority of telling them to believe otherwise. If people say "My belief is science/history/sociology/etc.", that is a testable conclusion, and Wikipedians test it according to WP:VERECUNDIAM. So, yes, if you say "This is my religion and this is what I believe as a matter of religious faith", then I'm very tolerant. If you say "My holy book is logically, scientifically and historically faultless", then I'm merciless with such assertions. If you say "I don't eat pork, because of my own religion", fine, no problem with that. If you say "Eating pork once a week is unhealthy", you are expected to produce extremely strong WP:MEDRS in order to WP:V your claim.

The WP:CHOPSY view upon the Bible, in 1½ hours: SATAN'S GUIDE TO THE BIBLE on YouTube. The view that Bible scholars are from Satan does exist, but Wikipedia considers it paranoid delirium.

Why endorse evolution

Mr. GIBERSON: When you ignore science, you end up with egg on your face. And the Catholic Church has had an awful lot of egg on its face for centuries because of Galileo. And Protestants would do very well to look at that and to learn from it.

— Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve, npr.org

When intelligent design proponents will do empirical science instead of rhetorical ploys, the scientific community will listen. That day hasn't come yet. Phillip E. Johnson died before he could know the hypothesis of intelligent design. You see, nobody took care of formulating ID as a cogent hypothesis.

Otherwise, I simply believe in the Creation theory of the Belgian priest Georges Lemaître.

I seek to align my own views to mainstream science, mainstream history, and mainstream archaeology. I do not seek to align mainstream science, mainstream history, and mainstream archaeology to my own views.

And this is the trick of science: even if scientists start by assuming a blatant falsehood, given time the scientific community will work its way out of that falsehood and reach valid insights. It happened e.g. with W.F Albright assuming that the Bible is trustworthy guide for archaeology. The scientific community initially got convinced by Albright, but that did not have the status of religious dogma. Through accumulating archaeological evidence, a scientific revolution happened in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. The Bible is no longer seen as historically accurate, even in its narratives that look a lot like historiography.

Ethnicity

According to DNA analysis I might have the following ethnicity: Kosovar, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, or Romanian. As combination of two ethnicities: Moldovan + Thessalonian Greek, or Hungarian + Ashkenazi Jew.

Drawing the conclusion: genetically I am preponderantly Romanian, with a smaller share linked to Israel (which could mean Druze, Samaritan, or Ashkenazi Jew, meaning Jews from Israel before the 20th century Aliyah).

What about my homeland? Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas. I can love a country without feeling the need of doctoring the harsh truths about it. Inside this encyclopedia if you think that national pride trumps objective fact you will be booed off the stage.

I an not a nationalist, Hungarian, Romanian, Dutch, Jewish, or otherwise. If anything, I am an internationalist. For fellow Romanians who accuse me of treason:

A pune scopurile statului și ale națiunii mai presus de independența intelectuală și a pretinde totodată că ele sînt juste și morale este unul din tipurile de „trădare” pe care le denunță Benda.

— Andrei Pippidi, Julien Benda, Trădarea cărturarilor. Humanitas, București, 1993. p. 10.

In case you wonder, Disruptive editing: ethno-national advocacy, WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct is a valid reason for indeffing editors. See [3].

I'm not anti-Romanian, I'm not anti-Hungarian either. I'm not anti-Ukrainian, I'm not anti-Russian either. I'm not anti-Israeli, I'm not anti-Palestinian either.

I do not know a lot about the history of Romania and I do not pretend to know a lot about it (I know more about the history of Ancient Israel than about the history of Romania). I only get involved in disputes about Romanian history when there is something fairly obvious to mention (such as wholeheartedly rejecting pseudohistory from being endorsed by Wikipedia) or when POV-pushers are misbehaving. I am dispassionate about the history of my own country and I love historians who keep a cool head and the debunkers of pseudohistory. I am not dispassionate about rejecting pseudohistory, which has no honorable place in a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia. So, yeah, my wiki-expertise is mostly about pseudohistory, rather than about positive history. For the most part, I'm not concerned with real facts about the history of Romania, but merely with stifling pseudohistory and overblown nationalist propaganda. Because crass, overblown propaganda is an insult to my intelligence. Nationalist activists lack the awareness that such propaganda makes them look around here like boorish idiots. And that coming across like boorish idiots is no way of honoring their own country. They lack the awareness that among educating people their talking points look silly and ridiculous. They think they aggrandize their own nation through Holocaust denialism. While for educated people that is a good reason for avoiding them.

Opposing quackery such as acupuncture and Traditional Chinese Medicine does not make me a racist. Why?

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

Cracking my PC

Hack tools used against my PC will be reported to Moscow.

Swatting me will likely be regarded as (attempted) international terrorism. US citizens who try it will be lifted from their beds by the FBI.

Social media

  • I have a Twitter account since 9 October 2021
  • My LinkedIn account is severely outdated due to being unused
  • My Facebook account is mostly unused (I briefly log in once in a while)
  • My Wikia (Fandom) account is largely unused
  • I do use my YouTube account for messages
  • If I did IRC that was many years ago, and I no longer do. I never did IRC in respect to Wikipedia.

So, if you read something by Tudor Georgescu on social media (WMF servers excepted) it's a 90% chance that it is from somebody else having the same name.

I don't beat around the bush, but I don't have a foul mouth either. So, offline attacks which use a foul mouth or employ extreme or vicious slander/libel are a joe job. When I'm angry, I seek to answer intelligently, instead of uttering obscene slurs. (Yup, it works much better than "Take a deep breath.")

I have IPVanish as VPN. But, no, I cannot edit Wikipedia through it, since it is globally blocked. I recently got Google One VPN, but the same applies to it.

About the joe job: I recently often lose LAN connectivity, so it's quite possible that hacking attempts are ongoing. I use a professional firewall solution, but you never know. I wasn't hacked yet, but it surely can happen. Now I am triple firewalled and triple NAT-ed. AFAIK someone is bypassing my firewall and performing portscans through the NAT, that's all they can do, and it crashes my LAN. I think this fixed it: "firewall: do not emit link-local address on IPv6 network outbound NAT".

Google has announced me today that 50 of my passwords were pwned. Google didn't know my Wikipedia password, and Have I Been Pwned: Check if your email has been compromised in a data breach says it was not pwned. The website does not list some of my e-mail addresses as pwned, although Google says they were pwned. The leak included long, complicated passwords which cannot be bruteforced.

And, yup, to get a 0-day exploit for my firewall, one would have to pay a fortune. And yup, one would need 0-days for three different firewalls.

For the checkusers

I will soon get a new modem. That means my IPs will change. I hope I don't get DS-Lite, but as I will be editing mostly through IPv6, that won't be a big problem. If you're asking why do you see only one IP, see this.

Wikipedia isn't Wikileaks

I have understanding for people who risk going to jail for contributing to Wikileaks. But I have no understanding for people who risk torture and going to jail for the privilege of citing mainstream media inside Wikipedia.

Here is why: suppose that same conditions apply in the West for citing mainstream media, except that it becomes a privilege. Every citizen who wants this privilege has to pay a hundred dollars per month. This isn't a big sacrifice to ask for, but I'm afraid that the vast majority of Western people would simply refrain from citing mainstream media, instead of paying a hundred dollars per month for such privilege.

Barnstars and such

This user is a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians.

The motto of the AIW is conservata veritate, which translates to "with the preserved truth".
This motto reflects the inclusionist desire to change Wikipedia only when no knowledge would be lost as a result.

AIW


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!-- Hu12 ( talk) 14:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This is for all your tireless and heroic efforts last night defending the article Yahweh from our perennial troll friend Wittgenstein123, even in the face of some seriously deranged (and somewhat incomprehensible) attacks on your personal character. I am sure he will probably return eventually, but, for now, I just wanted to let you to know how much I appreciate your work. Thank you so much! -- Katolophyromai ( talk) 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thank you for working to fend off the latest in a long line of Bible literalists over at Belshazzar, as well as your tireless defense of keeping this article aligned to what academics believe over the last few years. Ichthyovenator ( talk) 22:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your help with the translation project! Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The Purple Barnstar
For acting reasonably even when doing so aggravates the unreasonable. John Carter ( talk) 02:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
The LGBT Barnstar
For the work done in editing the articles regarding the LGBT community and for the firm activity against bigots inside Wikipedia. Alexandru M., 8 februarie 2017, 12:41 (EET)
Who I am

Who I am

Romanian citizen by birth, Dutch subject by naturalization (double nationality, thus).

Diplomas:

- 1991 Baccalaureate [3] and Professional Qualification Certificate from Informatics Lyceum no. 1 Bucharest (now called Tudor Vianu National College of Computer Science);

- 1999 License in Philosophy from University of Bucharest (comparable to Master of Arts);

- 2004 Propedeutic diploma in Sociology from University of Amsterdam;

- 2007 Bachelor of Science in Sociology (BSc), University of Amsterdam. Specialization: work, organizations and policy sociology.

- 2008 Obtained permission to bear the title drs. [4] title from Informatie Beheer Groep, the Dutch institution which recognizes foreign diplomas.

Member of the Dutch Sociological Association

Member of Mensa Netherlands and Mensa Romania, which belong to Mensa International, Ltd. [5]

Member of Dutch Society Against Quackery.

Member and friend of File Threads Database. FTD has been replaced by SpotNet.

Spoken languages: Romanian, English, French, Dutch (level 4, now called level B2, according to diploma NT2-II, do not confuse it with Wikipedia:Babel level 4, which would mean native or near-native speaker).

Reads and understands: Italian and a bit of Spanish.

Favorite authors: M. Heidegger, H.G. Gadamer, C.G. Jung, Leo Strauss, Allan Bloom.

Religious qualifications: Bible knower (in respect to the literal meaning of the verses; through self-study). From a Sola Scriptura perspective, I am a god and a Son of God.

Hacker (hobbyist) (hardware modder; I am no cracker [6] and no haxor, since my identity as hacker is based upon hacking the Device Configuration Overlay for certain hard discs). Accordingly, my psychological profile is listed on the following sites: Hacker's Manifesto, A Cyberpunk Manifesto.

Online references: from Dan A. Lazarescu (Ad-Vitam Sovereign Grand Commander) and from Lucian Gh. Iordanescu (Fr. Hermes)

My ideal for Wikipedia: academic learning in the image and likeness of Ivy Plus.

Briefly: I am committed, for the most part, much more to truth than to tribe. For The True Believer I'm from Satan with a mission to deny WP:THETRUTH. E.g. Napoleon Săvescu, who isn't a Wikipedian, has harassed me outside of Wikipedia for my edits concerning history and religion (yup, it isn't harassment if you don't tell it to the Police). I don't know if he realizes, but his criticism of my edits boils down to this: the historical method is the most pestilential doctrine ever vomited out of the jaws of hell. [7] [8] [9] Because the historical method, as practiced by WP:CHOPSY, necessarily leads to what he sees as defilement of the history and religion of my native country. What he sees as defilement is simply academic-level history writing. WP:CHOPSY do not pander to piety and neither does that Wikipedia. If all reputable universities have plonked him, it is not our task to WP:RGW. And I am certainly no traitor of my country merely because I state that he got plonked. If he got plonked it is his fault, not my fault.

If your basic complaint about my edits is your professor ran over my dogma, you are completely pitiful and pathetic. We are unapologetically in favor of the academic consensus, so you don't belong here. As Neil Asher Silberman stated, what we're doing is just continuing a struggle a scholarly struggle that's been going on for a hundred years the boundary just now happens to be in the story of the Israelites and the Israelite Kingdom and it's moving forward slowly to separate religious literature and spirituality from what we call history.

The scientific method and the historical method do not hate religion. There is no hate of ants required in order to crush ants nests with a bulldozer. Modern science and post-Enlightenment historiography destroy the intellectual clout of traditional/fundamentalist religion. If you want to know what I feel: I am annoyed by their ceaseless attacks upon Wikipedia, but I feel compassion/pity for their own religion.

If you think that the above violates WP:POLEMIC, we already have WP:NONAZIS and there should be WP:NOBIGOTS. Fundamentalist POV-pushers are a problem in religion articles and somebody has to tell them clearly that they do not belong here. Sorry if it seems like vitriol, this is simply the conclusion of an ongoing fight against bigoted vandals and true believers. ... Here's the bottom line: I call a troll a troll. I call a POV pusher a POV pusher. Accuracy is not incivility. ... I am not here to promote "Wiki-Love". I am not here to get my narrow, judgmental mind in a tizzy because someone used a Naughty Word. I am here to help with the enormous, challenging, exceptionally special group effort of creating the most amazing knowledge resource since the Library of Alexandria. Ask yourself, Why the hell are you here? Perhaps you'd be happier on some online community preaching some kind of feel-good pretend pablum than here. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. KillerChihuahua.

My Wikipedia edits in a few words: conservatively mainstream academic POV. This does not mean that I would be socially conservative. I am not politically active, but I find that classical liberalism is a good idea. What about feminism? You may consider me a pro-life and pro-porn conservative feminist. (Yup, I don't support abortion, but I don't support christofascism either.) Politically, you could consider me a tolerant conservative: I have conservative values, but I am tolerant of people who don't. My models are Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. That does not mean that I would blindly endorse everything they did or stood for. For me the representatives of the liberal Western world are Reagan, Thatcher and Bush 41. Although not politically active, I'm a Dutch conservative like People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. Which in US would be called liberals. Hint: PPFD voted in favor of gay marriage. You could call me a neoliberal centrist, although I am a socially and ecologically minded neoliberal (as worldview, but not politically engaged).

If you think supporting Reagan is a problem, learn that I don't see much difference (ideologically) between him and Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden. Anyway, that applies to a time when Noam Chomsky was right that Republicans and Democrats were two wings of the same party. As one Quoran has put it, the Clintons should be considered Reagan-era Republicans.

For me "conservatives" mean rational people who love science, arts, scholarship, and believe in classical liberalism. I don't construe Christian nationalism to mean conservatism.

I am never opposed to rendering objective facts and I do not happily delete factual information, even if it fails WP:N.

Skeptical POV

While I do have a POV supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship, I do not perform WP:MEAT edits for skeptics' associations. I am my own man in respect to how I edit Wikipedia.

A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with

A word for newbies which I seem to be in conflict with

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.) [10] 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. [11]

— Guy Chapman

"We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile." [12]

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.

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)


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.

April Fools' joke

April Fools' joke

— Knock, knock.

— Who's there?

— We're missionaries.

— What do you want?

— We preach the word of Nietzsche, Freud, Marx and Darwin.

Why am I a god and a Son of God?

Why am I a god and a Son of God?

Warning

According to Psalms 82:6, all human beings are gods and Sons of God. [13] According to John 10:33-36, wherein John is quoting Jesus Christ's own words, all human beings who heard the Scripture talking to them (e.g. heard the Scripture being preached by a priest or pastor inside a church) are gods. According to Acts 17:28, all human beings are the offspring of God (Elohim, YHWH). Till here this is simply reading what the Bible has to say, literally, without any kind of "interpretation" (other than the purely literal one). The Bible is a print-published source, peer reviewed by Dr. Jerome of Stridonium and Dr. Martin Luther (they established two different canons for the Bible; both such canons regard as valid and authoritative all verses quoted in this argument).

All humans are thus gods and Sons of God. I am a human being (and I heard the Scripture being preached in churches), therefore I am a god and a Son (offspring) of Elohim (YHWH). This is a valid syllogism based upon assumptions derived from the Bible. Does it count as interpolation? Since Sir Francis Bacon [14] affirmed that syllogisms are no tool meant to increase our knowledge (or: science), we may consider that performing a syllogism upon some assumptions is not interpolation. This is thus encyclopedic knowledge according to Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria. [15] Not.

By the way, Genesis 6:2, 4 and Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 speak about the Sons of God (using a capital letter is justified, since the Hebrew writing does not have capital letters, thus as far as the Bible authors are concerned "sons of God" and "Sons of God" are one and the same "thing", or the same idea). Therefore the Bible says that God has more than one Son.

So, I do not claim such titles only for myself [16], but for everybody else as well, because so says the Word of God expressed in the Holy Bible. The good news of the Bible tells you that you are a living god, making you thus aware of your divine nature.

I don't want to be associated with the absurdities of the Bible. Therefore, I make it more clear: the above is not my opinion about the Bible, but the opinion of the Bible about me. Is it absurd? Yes. Is it my absurdity? No.

If you think that the trick would have worked for Jesus, go to the closest synagogue and tell the Jews that you are God simply because you can cite Psalms 82:6, and see how that works. Hint: Jesus's answer was just too smart and subtle to be understood by an angry mob of blasphemers hunters. And quite probably no one knew it by rote. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament as you know it did not exist yet. So: which Bible? There was no Bible, there was the Pentateuch and a bunch of other writings. You call it Bible, for them it was not biblical Scripture. Was it an important Jewish writing? Yes. But regarding it as part of the Bible is anachronistic for Jesus's own time.

If you want to know what I think of Christianity: objectively speaking, rationally, there isn't a compelling reason for either adhering to or rejecting Christianity. As Søren Kierkegaard understood, joining and leaving Christianity are utterly subjective decisions.

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

About the Bible

Fanciful historians have no idea that Harvard professors teach the following about the Bible/Christianity:

Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that:

• The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive;

• The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;

— Beardsley Ruml, Shaye J.D. Cohen's Lecture Notes: INTRO TO THE HEBREW BIBLE @ Harvard (BAS website) (78 pages)

This POV is enacted all across Wikipedia and you will be crushed if you oppose it. We do not need jokers who deride academic learning.

Recipe: historical method + Bible... and the fundies will cry "Blasphemy!" History well-done and fundamentalism well-done leave no other option. None of that has anything to do with me. It's only a matter of time till fundamentalists will realize that the historical method is the enemy of their faith. Probably stuff for a book called The Academic Learning and Its Enemies.

One day they will say like Luther, The historical method is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God. [17]

Should we compare what gets taught at Harvard about the Bible/Christianity with the idiosyncrasies of bigoted agitators? By design Wikipedia chose for Harvard and against rendering fundamentalist theology as objectively true.

I write about Christianity sine ira et studio: I don't write only favorable stuff, nor only unfavorable stuff, but I write from an outside and disinterested perspective, based upon sources favored by WP:CHOPSY. Of course, POV-pushers construe this as mockery of their own religion, but Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't. There is a distinction which some people don't get: I do not cultivate mockery of religion, I cultivate higher academic learning about religion. Most of the time, I simply report what WP:CHOPSY Bible professors say about the Bible, both good news and bad news. At David I bring the bad news, but at Christ Myth Theory I bring the good news. David and Jesus have historically existed, that's by and large not the problem with the historicity of the Bible.

Why?

As they say, "The only difference between men and boys is the price of their toys". I cannot afford to buy cars, planes and yachts, so my toys are ideas.

For intellectuals ideas (including religious dogmas) are toys. Your religion is for us a provider of toys. One man's religion is another man's laughing stock. Again: Bible professors from Harvard and Collège de France don't construe as mockery what I write here about your religion.

I'm not speaking only of myself, I'm speaking about intellectuals in general. There was a pastor saying he had a child on a youth camp, and that child was asking nasty (read: intelligent) questions. And that pastor strongly punched the kid in his chest saying: "What do you think, that this is only a game?" Yes, we intellectuals play the game passionately, most of us with honesty, but in the end it's just a game. The scientific and social progress are based upon declaring that ideas are not sacred, but toys for intellectuals. We have merely human ideas, and those who pretend their ideas have been granted by God or gods are primitive cheaters. An idea obtained through reading or hearing is a merely human idea, regardless of whether there is a God.

Morals: if your religion is ruined by a kid asking smart questions, it is not much of a religion.

Hint: there is already Strathern, Paul (2002). Dr. Strangelove's Game. ISBN  978-0-14-029986-1. saying that economics is in the end a game.

Footnotes

  1. ^ I do not formally have the legal right to bear the title "Master of Arts" together with my name. However, MA is the common (customary) English translation of my title "license in philosophy" from University of Bucharest, Romania. Also, MA would be the proper English translation of my Dutch title drs., since this title has been replaced with MA following the Bologna Process, in so far as philosophy graduates are concerned. I do have the legal right to bear the title BSc together with my name. I use the degree M as stipulated by Dutch rules for translating pre-Bologna Dutch titles to post-Bologna international degrees, which do not allow me to use MA, but I have to use M instead. A combination of M with BSc is allowed according to Drs. A Jansen, MBA?, since they are different titles (i.e. my BSc was not a prerequisite for obtaining my M).
  2. ^ E.g. I think this book is a product of mystical delirium: Mayer, Thomas (2022). Covid Vaccines from a Spiritual Perspective. Raubling, Germany: CLAIRVIEW BOOKS. ISBN  978-3-910465-00-8.
  3. ^ The Romanian baccalaureate is no BA or BSc, it counts as high-school diploma, i.e. the diploma for finishing general and mandatory secondary education.
  4. ^ I.e., doctorandus; drs. is equal to MA in the Bachelor/Master system, in so far as philosophy graduates are concerned. The Netherlands recently introduced the Bachelor/Master system (according to the Bologna Process); in such system change the old title doctorandus was replaced by the degrees MA and MSc, which are equal in value with drs. My drs. title is genuine and legally recognized by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it does not mean dr.mult. (multiple PhD degrees).
  5. ^ See membership card and membership card (verso).
  6. ^ "The basic difference is this: hackers build things, crackers break them." E.S. Raymond How To Become a Hacker
  7. ^ Mead, James K. (1 January 2007). Biblical Theology: Issues, Methods, and Themes. Presbyterian Publishing Corp. p. 31. ISBN  978-0-664-22972-6.
  8. ^ Hesketh, Ian (3 October 2017). Victorian Jesus: J.R. Seeley, Religion, and the Cultural Significance of Anonymity. University of Toronto Press. p. 97. ISBN  978-1-4426-6359-6.
  9. ^ Tearle, Oliver (29 September 2016). The Secret Library: A Book-Lovers' Journey Through Curiosities of History. Michael O'Mara Books. p. 90. ISBN  978-1-78243-558-7.
  10. ^ Why the Dutch always say what they mean – BBC REEL on YouTube
  11. ^ 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.
  12. ^ Star Trek - First Contact (1996) Moviesoundclips.net. Rikeromega3 Productions 1999-2013. Retrieved September 26, 2013.
  13. ^ As previously noticed by Alan Watts ~ The bible is a dangerous book on YouTube.
  14. ^ Baron of Verulam, Viscount of St. Alban.
  15. ^ It's just tongue in cheek; don't take it seriously. Actually, you should never WP:VERify claims to WP:PRIMARY religious sources.
  16. ^ ... since I am not delusional about it. All I did is properly read what the Bible has to say about this issue. I am guilty of no more than plain reading. If a reading disability is preventing you from understanding the literal meaning of these Bible verses, I recommend you the program Kurzweil 3000. If theologians had such a program some thousands years ago, a lot of churchly dogmas would have been written substantially differently from today's version.
  17. ^ Luther, Martin (1848). The Table Talk Or Familiar Discourse of Martin Luther. D. Bogue. p. 164.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Tgeorgescu&oldid=1218958118"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE