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.) 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 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 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.
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 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 my 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".
Remnant of Giants
Hey you reverted my edit
Regarding this This. and your responded with this link https:/wiki/Wikipedia:RNPOV. Let me explain myself, that section in that article was obviously about what certain groups of people or scholars viewed the Bible.
I’m not saying to remove everything about “critical historical treatment of their own faith“ And I’m sorry if my edit came off as one those people who wants to promote their religion on Wikipedia to you. Keep all the parts that are critical of the Bible in the article. It’s just many people worldwide have their own interpretations and views of the Bible. But, that section didn’t mention what Christians or other denominations thought of it. Like seriously that section mentioned what muslims and biblical criticism viewed the Bible. CycoMa (talk) 07:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
You have reverted my edit
This is regarding this Let me tell you the source I added is a better one than the previous one and also it is a bonafide website of Hare Krishnas. The previous source is something which has given a lot of allegations on other sects etc. So please accept this edit.Student-iitkgp (talk) 13:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Student-iitkgp: You asked the wrong person: I don't know much about Hare Kirshna. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
please keep forum-like talk off the TP's, ok?
Hi, I have run into a problem and would appreciate help from a more experienced editor. Basically, pages of famous people who's religion is relevant is no longer showing up on Wikipedia infobox of that person's biography. The edits are still there, but when published they no longer show up. For example, Nicholas II of Russia. If you go into the edit page, you will see that his religion is listed as "Russian Orthodox"as it should be, but it no longer appears on his page. I checked, and this is the same for all other important figures whose religion was listed before. Any help would be appreciated --GorgeousJ (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
- @GorgeousJ: I don't know about that. You should ask at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Rylands Library Papyrus P52 Revert
I am fine with the revision that you did but I find it a bit disconcerting to label it as vandalism and disruptive editing especially with how an increasing number of social elements do not give the Christian viewpoint any fair hearing. I do not want to see that kind of silencing in common source of information as Wikipedia as well. I am not saying that is your intention, but please do take into account these sorts of things when someone writes such a revision note as I did. I have brought the matter up in the talk page I guess I should have done that, that way from the start. Again I am not saying you had ulterior motives I am sure you were just giving a normal edit, but people are more on edge of late and if there are ways we can make little changes to make people who feel discriminated against, I think we ought to consider them where possible. Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider it, not everyone who makes such changes is doing it to be a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)