Talk:People's Salvation Cathedral

Untrustworthy sources

Those two statements are not backed by any empirical evidence or secondary source. The sources cited are two right-wing blogs (one which belongs to an NGO aiming to ban abortion and another one promoting historical revisionism). None of them provide evidence for their claims in the original text, they just quote conservative or nationalist pundits. These claims do not meet the minimum standards of Wikipedia. Cscescu (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Unreferenced content

@MIHAIL: I have removed some sources considered unreliable and added maintenance templates to statistics within the infobox that do not have a reference with justifications given in my edit summaries. I removed two sources as they are not reliable, namely:

• http://byzantinearch.blogspot.ro/search/label/%7CCMN%7C%20Catedrala%20Mantuirii%20Neamu - Because it is a blog, which is not a reliable source
• https://www.libertatea.ro/stiri/catedrala-mantuirii-neamului-in-cifre-2465965 - Because this source uses the exact same statistics that were present on this article before the source was published on 25 November 2018 (see [1]) which makes it highly suspicious of a circular reference, which is prohibited (see WP:REFLOOP).

In addition, I also tagged unreferenced statistics with a template, while other "references" that were actually footnotes about the breakdown of statistics without themselves being referenced from anywhere were also removed.

However, you have repeatedly reverted these edits without any explanation (see [2] and [3]). In [4], your edit summary only says "the data is 100% secure....I've been working here for months ... you come and ruin the work of others... I will not give up" which does nothing to explain how the statistics are verifiable, and only serves to attack another editor. According to Wikipedia policy, content on Wikipedia must be verifiable (see WP:V) and referenced to a reliable source (see WP:RS), or it may be challenged and removed by other editors. Please be aware that you do not have ownership over this article, and as advised by other editors on your talk page (see [5]), disruptive editing is not an acceptable way of dealing with content disputes.

According to Wikipedia's policy on WP:BRD, I would like to invite you to discuss on this talk page your reasoning and see if we can come to an understanding about how we can abide by Wikipedia's policy of verifiability. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

According to WP:RNPOV, Wikipedia cannot have real miracles. So, the miraculous apparition of that icon is either "alleged", or the reference fails WP:RS and the claim has to be deleted. Wikipedia endorses no religion. So, obviously, it does not endorse Eastern Orthodox miracles as historically factual. Miracles cannot be objective historical facts, since post-Enlightenment historians work with methodological naturalism. Miracles have been purged from history, since the Enlightenment. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Further, I have removed unreliable sources (per WP:SPS and WP:CIRCULAR). I have united the books with the rest of the references (see WP:MOS for details). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@MIHAIL: Take heed of WP:SPS, WP:CIRCULAR and WP:RNPOV, otherwise you will be reported to WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@MIHAIL: Also seems to me that comparisons with other icons are sheer WP:OR. Wikipedia doesn't work that way, buddy. Continue with original research if you want to get into hot water. This is now being discussed at WP:NORN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Links to Wikimedia Commons fail WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

[6] Solved our dilemma. MIHAIL recognized that It's my work and that he got the information directly from the painter D. Codrescu, instead of consulting WP:RS. I'm not saying that what he did was bad quality information, but WP:NOTESSAY denies his right to perform original research inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

You see, nobody has the right to perform original research inside Wikipedia. It is part of WP:RULES, I did not make that up. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: I'm not contesting the fact that it is the 2nd/3rd highest cathedral. I was just saying that those WP:SOURCES are either unreliable or don't WP:Verify the claim made. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@MIHAIL: Nobody has anything against you, personally. WP:NOTESSAY is not an offense to your own person, it is simply how the WP:RULES are. If you want to edit here, you have to understand the WP:RULES, that's why you get so stressed by your edits, because these do not comply to our rules. I created 90% of the article and some come to stress me — if you write here, better comply with our rules, otherwise every experienced editor will revert your edits. We don't hate you as a person, but we hate rule-breaking. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Surface area

The map gives 6050 m² surface area (fara sacri=without stairs). This is the external build-up area. For the internal area (which is harder to calculate) maps at the official site give precise numbers ([7]), naos and pronaos combine to 3300 m², gallery north and south at floor level 2x430 m² (at pronaos) and 2 x 115m² (at altar), exonarthex and entrance=540 m². In total the floor area at ground level after these calculations is 4930 m². This data can be verified. Most sites in the english wiki give 6050 m² for interior space, which at ground level is not true. Also one of the constructin enterprises of the cathedral gives the total build area at floor level at 5760 m² [8].

Google Maps incident

Worth a mention? [9] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)