User talk:Lightest

Discretionary sanctions alerts

Comments which I find to be uncivil or irrelevant will be deleted.

On Discretionary Sanctions and Civilness (Stay on Top, July 2022)

Discretionary sanction is a restriction placed on a Wikipedia editor who is found not to subscribe to leftist thought and ideology Lightest (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is aware of the discretionary sanction topic area(s): Science and History. He should not be given alerts for those areas. This user is interested in the accurate presentation of controversial topics on Wikipedia.

User:tgeorgescu is one of the quick reverters on Wikipedia. He may be a good police officer, but not a good citizen. Lightest (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sanctions for science and history. Doug Weller talk 11:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I have removed an ivmbox message from User:tgeorgescu because he quotes something that is irrelevant and suspects me as a disruptor of Wikipedia. I also removed a quote that mistaken me as mistaking Wikipedia for a democratic society. In my opinion, Wikipedia is a society, but I never think it is democratic. Nevertheless, it claims to promote Wikipedia:How to be civil. User:tgeorgescu seems to be paid to play with Wikipedia as his day job. So it is not wise to interact with this person too much. Lightest (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia is never a "company," but a civil space. A civil space has civil policies, and it is not a place to promote quick temper and biased thinking. Lightest (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what you mean by "civil", it's a charitable organisation incorporated in California. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This charitable organization promotes Wikipedia:How to be civil. Lightest (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn’t. That’s neither a policy or guideline. We do have WP:CIVIL and WP:AgF and whatever anyone else is doing you’re violating them. Doug Weller talk 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree with what is said in Wikipedia:How to be civil? If not, then we have great disagreement. But I respect those who disagree with me, as long as basic rules are followed. Also, how am I violating civility or assuming good faith? Lightest (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t understand, I can’t help you. Doug Weller talk 19:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I was uncivil towards Lightest. Basically, I gave them a standard template, and a quote from another editor. If the template were uncivil, it weren't a standard template. And that editor did not speak about Lightest, but about somebody else.

About bias: Wikipedia is heavily biased for the scientific consensus. Is Britannica otherwise? Is Larousse otherwise? Then don't complain about Wikipedia! tgeorgescu (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The standard template was a discretionary sanction, which is fine because it is not like a warning. I take it as a friendly reminder. But the quote later was irrelevant. It does not speak about me, and there is no explanation why it was dumped in my page, since I never said that Wikipedia is a democratic society. (Actually I don't think democracy is not the best or the only way to run a society.)

(Wikipedia relies on scientific consensus when the article is a topic of science, but when the article is biographical, we need biographical sources like history, news reports, etc. For example, the fact that Dinesh Joseph D'Souza is a conspiracy theorist is an established fact in reliable sources. This I have no problem with.)

Lightest (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The true problem of User:tgeorgescu is that he did not have a reasonable rule to include a pejorative term in the article of Stephen C. Meyer. I saw many articles that have the term 'pseudoscience' in it, but I did not remove it because it can be established in the sources. In the case of Stephen C. Meyer, the resource is lacking. Lightest (talk) 00:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for the page having two sets of rules, it doesn't: sources representing mainstream scientific thought have precedence over mysticism and fringe science. That should be a fairly simple rule to comprehend and abide by.
— User:Kww

Besides, many more WP:RS from that article point that ID is a failed attempt to do science, in other words it is pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have conflated the two articles and tried to promote your own view. In the ID article, we should describe the views on ID; in Meyer's article, we collect descriptions of Meyer. If we make inference on our own (e.g. we guess that if we poll the scientific community, then Meyer would be classified as a pseudoscientist), then it becomes original research. Lightest (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're wrong. Meyer is a peddler of a failed attempt at doing science, which he nevertheless presents it as science is semantically equivalent to Meyer is a peddler of pseudoscience. Of course the WP:RS has to mention Meyer, otherwise it would fail WP:BLP. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Meyer is a peddler of a failed attempt at doing science" -- quoted from User:tgeorgescu. But has User:tgeorgescu published this statement in a peer-reviewed journal? Lightest (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No need. It's the sources for Meyer and what he teaches that make the case. He's just reflecting them. Doug Weller talk 15:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is called original research, by the way. In addition, if there is a dozen of users removing that word in an extended period of time, it perhaps reflects the fact that the lead isn't written appropriately. Lightest (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is called original research? After 240,000 edits I should be able to recognise it. Doug Weller talk 18:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Original research: facts, allegations, and ideas for which no reliable, published sources exist. Secondly, suppose someone finds a reliable, published source that says some person is a promoter of pseudoscience, it is not stated in Wikipedia's voice unless the sources show that it is uncontested. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view Lightest (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously you’re trying to teach me? I was asking for the specific edit or statement. Doug Weller talk 19:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Lightest! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 15:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

General rules about Material in the lead (Aug 2021)

Material in the lead doesn't need sourcing if it is sourced in the body of the article

See WP:LEAD Doug Weller talk 15:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This rule isn't the point. The point is that the lead is supposed to summarize the sourced content of the article. Lightest (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem is? Doug Weller talk 19:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I checked, what you removed had a whole section. Doug Weller talk 19:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues on deleting things in the user'talk page (July 2022)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User talk:Lightest, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning: you're allowed to delete stuff from your own talk page, you're not allowed to edit my messages, normally speaking. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It did not say that it was not allowed, but it only says "it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are editing." Lightest (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And if you continue to do this, don't be surprised if you are blocked for disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed at

WP:FTN#Hugh Ross (astrophysicist) Doug Weller talk 11:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Belshazzar. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my commentary, but a rational reflection of what the source says. As a scholar myself, I carefully check every source. Lightest (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are behaving like WP:RANDY, there is no point editing our articles. See Yale Bible Study, Daniel: Who Was Daniel? on YouTube. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my responsibiliy to watch some untrusted source like YouTube. If you are a responsible editor, you should not revert any sensible edits. You must contribute the reliable sources. Lightest (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, the source is Yale Divinity School. Two full professors from Yale are discussing the Book of Daniel. One of them is one of the leading experts on that book. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of private thoughts from a private collection of links is not how Wikipedia works. Just do your edits instead of policing. Lightest (talk) 18:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not "private". It's from Yale Bible Studies online. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Belshazzar, you may be blocked from editing. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Belshazzar 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) 17:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Belshazzar. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:09, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]