User talk:Karma1998/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Karma1998, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JarrahTree 11:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

July 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Australian Labor Party. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 12:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to add to the above, the commented note in these fields of the infobox is there for a reason: it reflects previous discussions on the article's talk page. If you would like to re-raise this issue on the talk page, please do so. But please stop edit warring first. Nick-D (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I got the message, I won't do that again

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Conservatism into United Russia. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about this problem, but I wasn't aware of this regulation. I will remember this when I have to copy again. -- Karma1998 (talk) 13:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to United Russia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Il Fatto Quotidiano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-corruption (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Social Democratic Party (Brazil, 2011), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Green Party of Georgia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Karma1998. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Congress of Brazil, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Democratic Labour Party and Brazilian Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi Karma1998 and thanks for all of your work on Wikipedia. Would you please ensure that you add edit summaries when you make changes, and also add citations where appropriate? (E.g. I found this citation to support your recent change to the People's Party (Spain) change: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-royals-idUSKBN0ED0NS20140602.) Cheers. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Syriza and 'left-wing nationalism'

I saw your change. In general, certainly the party doesn't identify as 'nationalist'. The main 'constituent element' of the coalition was a party that had been described as democratic socialist, ecosocialist, eurocommunist, environmentalist, feminist, pacifist. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaspismos

It is true that during the crisis, especially during 2011-2015 they used some short of anti-German populist rhetoric. So, what is written in that article was true to some extent but is not so true today, imho. They don't use that rhetoric after signing the 'third memorandum' and the party split. Read also about the Prespa agreement and the reactions from nationalists in both Greece and North Macedonia. Syriza was against those nationalists.

Someone had added 'Social-democracy'. Someone else 'Anti-capitalism'. The first one was using as a reference the view of a Greek scholar who sees a move towards center-left political positions. That is certainly true about their rhetoric. Today Syriza advocates cooperation between European Left, Socialists and Democrats and Greens at the European level. The other one was based on the opinion of a dumb British (?) artist who called people to join Greek 'revolution'. I had removed both, even though I believe the move towards center-left is real (but maybe in progress)

I don't want to revert any changes though anymore. Consider it yourself. Sorry for any syntactical or other mistakes. Apostolos Papadimitriou (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on John Woodcock (politician). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

European Coalition (Poland)

Hello. I am sorry to bother you, but if you do not mind I would like to ask about something. Yesterday, the next political party decided to join the European Coalition - source. It was previously called the Union of the Left, but in 2015 changed its name to "Wolność i Równość". Could you add this information to both articles I mentioned above, please? You are a very experienced user, and I don't speak English fluently, thus I would be very grateful for your help. Thanks a lot in advance! PS. I also noticed that in the European Coalition article there is a doubled "and" when the parties included in KE are listed, probably because of adding SDPL after the Union of European Democrats without changing "and" into a comma between the Polish People's Party and the latter. Kind regards, 89.66.254.10 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Parliament of South Africa

Hi, there. I have reverted your edit. GOOD Party Leader Patricia de Lille said upon her appointment that GOOD remains an opposition party, even though she serves in the National Government. The Second Cabinet of Cyril Ramaphosa isn't necessarily the government. Please read here and here. Thank you for understanding. Have a good day. Lefcentreright (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Opposition Platform — For Life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page For Life (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

State Duma

Please add a source saying Rodina and LDPR support the current government. Thank you! --HighFlyingFish (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In 2012 United Centre gained parliamentary representation for the first time....

Thanks for your edit on United Centre. But in your edit you claim United Centre gained parliamentary representation for the first time in 2019 while a few sentences above (your new writing in the article) it is clearly stated and referenced that the party won 3 seats in the Ukrainian parliament in the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election..... I am hoping that I am right to assume that 2012 was before 2019 on both our perceptions of reality — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 13:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Hello, I'm Alexander Zubatov. I noticed that you recently removed content from PAIS Alliance without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Removing sourced content, unless there is an explicit reason to do so, is generally frowned upon on Wikipedia. Alexander Zubatov (talk) 15:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Democratic Party (Italy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Europa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited João Goulart Filho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Labour Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Assembly (Namibia), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CDV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Free Destourian Party, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Free Democratic Party

Hi, I noticed that you recently added back "economic liberalism" to the infobox on this page. I removed it because "Economic liberalism is already implied by classical liberalism by definition, so it doesn't need to be listed. Economic liberalism is already addressed in the lead." Do you disagree with this, or can I remove it again? Thank you in advance. Ezhao02 (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Feel free to revert if you disagree with my reasoning. Ezhao02 (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Robby.is.on (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to The Exodus, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Eilat Mazar into Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, content you added to Census of Quirinius appears to be a minority or fringe viewpoint, and appears to have given undue weight to this minority viewpoint, and has been reverted. To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Feel free to use the article's talk page to discuss this, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. By fringe I mean that source, which isn't WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

• Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
• "Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

• "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
• Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
• We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
• A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
• Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
• Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
• We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. We're not a directory, nor a forum, nor a place for you to "spread the word".

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

If you came here to maim, bash and troll: be gone! If you came here to edit constructively and learn to abide by policies and guidelines: you're welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01 April 2021 00:45:56 (UTC)

References

No original research of Ancient or Medieval sources

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Gospel of John. Read it slowly and carefully and you'll find out why is it of application. If WP:CHOPSY say that the Bible is wrong something, so says Wikipedia. WP:EXTRAORDINARY applies to giving the lie to those universities, especially when they all toe the same line. I oppose WP:PROFRINGE in our articles. You may read the full rationale at WP:NOBIGOTS.

For Wikipedia, WP:FRINGE is what WP:CHOPSY say it's fringe, not what the Christian Church says it's fringe.

Ancient documents and artifacts referring to the Bible may only be analyzed by mainstream Bible scholars (usually full professors from reputable, mainstream universities), as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Your own analysis is unwanted, also, my own analysis is unwanted, and so on, this applies to each and every editor. Wikipedia is not a website for ventilating our own personal opinions.

Wikipedia editors have to WP:CITE WP:SOURCES. That's the backbone of writing all Wikipedia articles. Talk pages of articles are primarily meant for discussing WP:SOURCES.

Original research and original synthesis are prohibited in all their forms as a matter of website policy. Repeated trespassers of such rule will be blocked by website administrators.

Being a Wikipedian means you are a volunteer, not that you are free to write whatever you please. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH and WP:FREE. Same as K12 teachers, Wikipedians don't have academic freedom. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01 April 2021 00:45:56 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: As usual, when someone tries to defend the Bible, he's a "bigot" and a "fundamentalist". Well, I give up; if Wikipedia wants to be an anti-Christian website, so be it. -Karma1998 (talk)

We're not anti-Christian to the same extent we're not anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, or anti-Muslim. But in a way, you're right: we're anti-fundamentalist. If you want to put it this way, in the Fundamentalist–Modernist controversy, Wikipedia chose the side of Modernism. Not Christian modernism, mind you, but modernism unspecified. Since that is what the mainstream academia teaches about the Bible in particular and religion in general. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I see, @Tgeorgescu:. Wikipedia has made a choice, and I respect that, however undemocratic that is. I will not make any further attempt on it. Perhaps it's time for me to use other encyclopedias who are less politically motivated. -Karma1998 (talk)

WP:DEM: writing an encyclopedia isn't democratic, it isn't undemocratic or anti-democratic either. False dilemma. It isn't party politics, in the meaning of choosing between Socialists, Republicans and Democrats.

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't care about your nonsense, @Tgeorgescu:. Write whatever you want to, ban me if you want, I don't give a damn. I'm off this biased, one-sided Wiki.--Karma1998 (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You've again mistaken Wikipedia for a democratic society where social freedom, personal expression and the liberty thereof are values placed above all other. In such a society McCarthyism is a malignant prejudice designed to silence opinions and constrain political thought. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A book. An online repository. The people who are making it are doing a job. They're working and they are adhering to a basic set of management principles. If this were a company, like the marketing department of coco cola for example, it would be perfectly reasonable for the company to have principles, which say, "no - we don't want that". And to enforce them if employees persistently acted in contrary. For some reason, because a group of editors have objected to your contributions and you have found no support, you accuse the project of being Machiavellian, whereas the reality is that your content has been looked at (ad nauseam) and has been rejected. You are required to disclose COI here. Just like you are required to sign NDAs or exclusivity contracts if you work for coco cola. In fact the only real difference between this organization and a company is that we don't fire or sue people when they come into the office and spend all day bending the ear of everyone they meet, telling colleagues what a bunch of pigs we and the company are for not seeing eye to eye with them. In a nutshell - its OK for Wikipedia to have policies, its OK for Wikipedians to decide they don't like certain content and its OK to exclude that content from our pages. Edaham (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Are you blind? I don't care about your nonsense. You're waisting your time --Karma1998 (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, you are misunderstanding me this time: I'm not stating that minimalists are wrong, I'm simply writing the answers Herzog received from other scholars. Are those answers to be censored? It's not about religion, it's about facts.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Herzog won, Shanks lost. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: What the hell? What is this, a pod-race? Man, the way you express yourself is astonishing.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want me to restate: the evidence (or lack of evidence that should have been found by now if it ever existed) preponderantly favors Herzog over Shanks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

And therefore Shanks's opinion is to be censored?--Karma1998 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Demonizing minimalists is a debate tactic that proved to be wanting and unconvincing. Why? Because the actual evidence tends to favor minimalists. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I'm not demonizing anyone. I'm stating facts. And actual evidence doesn't tend to favor minimalists. Please look at the results of Khirbet Qeiyafa excavations --Karma1998 (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Yup, it does: the United Monarchy is in a state of deep coma, and only a god could save it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: exept that it isn't. The existence of the United Monarchy is supported by important archaeologist like Amihai Mazar, Avraham Faust, Eilat Mazar and others. And, with perhaps the exception of Eilat Mazar, these are in no way fundamentalists.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing is that Finkelstein wants the United Monarchy to be true, and he is proposing the Low Chronology specifically to allow the "evidence" to support a Davidic empire – specifically because the evidence currently available does not support any significant statehood in the Conventional Chronology time period. Wdford (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: "Since this debate began, Amihai Mazar proposed the Modified Conventional Chronology which places the beginning of the Iron IIA period in the early 10th century and its end in the mid-9th century. Amihai Mazar has strongly argued against Finkelstein's views. Today, the consensus of archaeologists is in favour of Mazar's Modified Conventional Chronology." I'm quoting Wikipedia itself.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

All those chronologies are unfalsifiable. Finkelstein thought If It Don't Fit, Use a Bigger Hammer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: So, no-one is right or wrong. Which is my point from the very beginning. Therefore, let's leave both opinions in the article withouth ideological prejudice.--Karma1998 (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I want to explain my point of view, so that our ridiculous bickering can finally be over. I don't believe the exodus happened in the way described by the Bible; I don't believe that three million people crossed the sea. I simply believe that a small group of people left Egypt and returned to Canaan, bringing their cult with them. However, I don't like the aggressive way that Wikipedia uses to handle the situation. The fact that Shanks has an opinion that is not shared by others doesn't mean that he has to be censored. -Karma1998 (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: by the way, William G. Dever is not a conservative on the biblical archeological field, he's a centrist. Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier are conservatives. -Karma1998 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Your recent editing history at Kingdom of Judah shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in an edit war, I'm simply stating the opinions of mainstream archaeologists and recent archeological discoveries.-Karma1998 (talk)

I'm willing to accommodate what William Dever and Amihai Mazar say, that's not the problem. The problem is that neither side of the dispute has prevailed, and that real evidence is extremely hard to come by. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Let's make a compromise, shall we? Let's insert both opinions, either maximalist (Dever, Mazar, Faust) and minimalist (Finkelstein, Herzog and others). How can we do it? --Karma1998 (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Karma1998 reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result: ). Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Fabricating sentences; this is a formal warning to desist forever

I am aware of four instances where you were fabricating sentences and pretending those were verifiable in the given sources (see WP:NORN#Yahweh for details). Consider that the next attempt to do that will be the end of your editing career at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)