User talk:FlorinCB

• 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• We do not publish original thought nor original research.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• We do not publish original thought nor original research.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^[1] 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) 12 May 2022 19:34:52 (UTC)

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) 19:52, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not contributed to any article in English about the Gospel of John nor other Gospel. FlorinCB (talk) 13:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Its point is not the book of John, but performing original research or original synthesis. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I see no original research. I remember that I translated one page from Hebrew to English and I did not added one extra word to the paragraphs translated. FlorinCB (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"Correcting" the academic consensus with your own analysis of NASA data is a textbook case of original research.

To cut the craps, about the death of Herod there are three views: a majority opinion (4 BCE), a minority opinion (1 BCE), and a WP:FRINGE opinion (1 CE). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I disputed the NASA data as not corresponding to 4 BCE majority view because that eclipse output falls in 3 BCE but You reminded me about PHP calendar extension that outputs -1 for 2 BCE, ..., -3 for 4 BCE. This is not academical research and is not original research, is that I forget from programming how the extension works intensionally because I expected from NASA and HEBCAL etc., not to relay on the build in native PHP functions to generate BCE years but to develop an o_O calendar class that can compensate if year less then 1 add -1: 0 -1, -1 -1, ..., -3 -1, etc. They can not do this because they have a PC application that is also generating maps for lunar and solar events and the developer is working in Visual C. We did a programming dispute regarding the majority view and not an original research. FlorinCB (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand what PHP and Visual C have to do with your edits. According to website policy (WP:SYNTH), you will refrain from original synthesis, otherwise admins will block you. This is not a website not relitigating the scholarly consensus, we merely render it for what it is. And views except those three mentioned don't even quality for notable fringe views.

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century BC, it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact without qualification. It would have also reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the Earth's circumference in 240 BC) either as controversial or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the Sun goes round the Earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as "originale investigationis". Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the Earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free thought, which is a Good Thing.

— WP:FLAT

Leave your own opinions and your own personal research outside of Wikipedia, we're not interested in your own musings.

Leave your opinions at the door. This applies to all editors, you have been not singled out for special treatment. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @FlorinCB: I reviewed your article at NPP and had to move to Draft. Currently the article is completely unsourced. The days of having unsourced of mainspace on Wikipedia. Every article needs in-line citations proving each sentence, a ref per sentence is the standard. Please take a look at WP:REFB which explains how to create citations. It such a beautiful article as well. The draft can edit just as in mainspace. Once it is updated give me a shout I will promote it back to mainspace. I sincerely hope you update it with a whole bundle of references. More than 100 would do, as such a nice article. It deserves it really. I could give you some help to try and pull it together. Drop me message on my talk page, if you need help. scope_creep^Talk 14:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Israelites (religion), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Pafsanias (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  331dot (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FlorinCB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

It is one year since 21 February 2023 since I did the penal complaint against Pafsanias for translating backwards from Romanian to French one note and blocking my access on Romanian Wikipedia so that they can dispute in the moderator group what notes I taken in lyceum for French action that continued as a wore in real life but was not taken in consideration by the penal parquet as a informational fraud but only as a personal problem between us online and has no sense since we do not reach before a judge with the dispute. FlorinCB (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry but this really isn't making any sense. It has only been one month, not one year, for one thing.

Are you trying to say you have withdrawn your plans for any legal action?

But apart from that, your English leads me to ask you to ask yourself whether you're up to editing on this Wikipedia. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FlorinCB (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

As you say you have legal actions underway, I have blocked you. You may not edit Wikipedia until the legal actions are withdrawn or concluded. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

FlorinCB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Since my mother language is Hebrew and I have no idea what English language is You can block me. BTW, I did forget about your site called Wikipedia. You also can not understand what I'm typing because You do not speak my mother language. Block me so how bad Romanians say that we are mentally retarded about Jews and continue with the American Congress you Antisemitism on American sites. FlorinCB (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I don't follow, but I am revoking talk page access. PhilKnight (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

FlorinCB (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked because an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the Unblock Ticket Request System that have been declined leading to the posting of this notice.

 PhilKnight (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, FlorinCB. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Israelites (religion), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Appeal #110026 is declined. (I could not figure out the clues with my Secret Decoder Ring.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2026 (UTC)