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 hard with 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.

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.

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.

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:55, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 05:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tgeorgescu, Years ago I was doing some research in a Jewish Library and Moses was in the fiction section. I was not surprised. When I studied Old Testament at the University of Detroit he was barely mentioned at all and that was in the 70s. The following material on Moses from the Jewish Encyclopedia is very interesting. Give it a glance: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11049-moses It is astonishing the Jewish Encyclopedia has NOT BEEN UPDATED since 1906!!! The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. The Catholic Encyclopedia was completed in April, 1914. IT HAS NEVER BEEN UPDATED!! The Jerome Biblical Commentary is a 1968 book of Biblical scholarship and commentary edited by Raymond Edward Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, and Roland E. Murphy. In 1990, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary was published by the same editors as a revised and updated edition. (This volume contains the first works by female Biblical scholars) It is now 2020. Obviously new information about the ancient world has been discovered and critically evaluated by the scientific community that IS NOT contained in these earlier, and many times OUTDATED, works. Happy Magic. Miistermagico (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/ Miistermagico (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reversed an edit i made to The Shroud of Turin. If you actually read how it was written before the edit, you can't argue that the language was very biased. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and factual. And by the way, the text read " all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted". Now let's analyse the references here. This sentence claims that one side has hard core evidence and the other side of the argument is merely a hypothesis. As a scientist let me affirm that we make a theory, or hypothesis, and then we test it to see if we can prove it with evidence. What I can see on these references are rarely low-level evidence (i.e. opinions) refuting the "challenge the radiocarbon dating" - that cannot accurately be described as "scientifically refuted". In science we have many theories and many of these theories show signs that are promising but this does not always to equate to evidence. Now, in this context, neither side of the argument seems to claim the C-14 testing was in itself inaccurate. That would be farcical. C-14 is widely respected to be generally very accurate. However, regardless of this, the results are justifiably questioned if the sample is not fair. An unfair sample will give unfair results. Like I said in my edit, the reference I removed is a blog post, Which is not permitted as a references according to Wikipedia guidelines. Furthermore the blog post is not a scientific paper but includes an opinion.

In conclusion, the sentence below: "all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted" would be more SCIENTIFICALLY balanced if it were replaced with: "all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been disputed"

The sentence goes on to then detail how it is disputed (which I did not remove).

I will be reverting to my edit.