94.210.116.247

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:

• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply create a named account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

• Create new pages and rename pages
• Edit semi-protected pages
• Upload images
• Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (94.210.116.247) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

Happy editing!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 94.210.116.247. You have new messages at Talk:Babylonian captivity.
Message added 16:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Doug Weller talk 16:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Darius the Mede, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello Tgeorgescu,

The original Hebrew text mentions Koresh Daniel 10:1, not Cyrus therefore.

When identifying him as Cyrus the Great this should be proven first before stating it as fact. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 09:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We're not a research institute, we're not in the business of proving anything, we simply cite reliable sources written by mainstream scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:28, 22 May 2018 (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) 04:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Talk:Darius the Mede, 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 the 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Darius the Mede. 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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Darius I shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Darius I. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Darius I, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

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. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Darius I. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Artaxerxes I of Persia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Artaxerxes I of Persia, you may be blocked from editing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please explain. 94.210.116.247 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Already explained at Talk:Artaxerxes I of Persia#445 BC. You obviously have scorn for verifiable information from reliable sources. This is your last warning, next stop is WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

That's a fragment from a much earlier editor, not from me, however it seems like detail, you are free to change it of course.

But why revert a whole edit which is quite truthful and sourced as well? 94.210.116.247 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You have a habit of displaying scorn for verifying information in reliable sources, relying instead upon your own original research performed upon the Bible (remember Koresh isn't Cyrus stuff?), you have introduced repeatedly 446 BCE in the article instead of 445 BCE (the later is correct, according to WP:SOURCES). So, obviously, WP:REDFLAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Artaxerxes I of Persia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evert Wandelaar, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't personalize

At Wikipedia those who don't abide by our WP:RULES are unwelcome. Let's not personalize: this is not about me or you, it is about breaking WP:RULES. Breaking our rules is unwelcome. So, if you want to come back to Wikipedia sooner or later, don't break our WP:RULES. That's all you have to do in order to edit and having your edits preserved, instead of them getting deleted. Of course, your continual persistence in WP:IDHT promises nothing good, but I am not a mind reader and some people might change their own behavior. So, this is about behavior: if you don't break our WP:RULES you will have a good time around here. If you break our WP:RULES you will be blocked and banned, as you have been in the past. I don't hate people and I have nothing personal against you. But I take breaking our rules very seriously, and this is what every experienced Wikipedia editor does. We do not allow people to insert inside our encyclopedia pseudoscience, pseudo-knowledge or their own WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. We are not an outlet for publishing your personal views. Keep your own opinions outside of Wikipedia. For us, only the opinions of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, mainstream science and mainstream press matter. Naturally, I keep my own opinions and preferences out of Wikipedia, I invite you to do the same. Instead of faking knowledge in order to align Wikipedia with my own opinions, I align my own opinion with mainstream scholarship, mainstream science and mainstream press. That's all you need in order to be a successful Wikipedia editor. We do not value originality (for its own sake), we value established knowledge, properly published by those who are considered top experts in their field. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello Tgeorgescu,

Actually all my edits have solid references.

On the other hand the obvious doesn't need to be proven, such as this name used in the Aramaic parts of the Bible is Aramaic.

It is quite mean to use a frame of corrupt scam artists by the way.94.210.116.247 (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Technically, WP:DENY applies to indeffed editors, all their edits are fair game to be undone if they are caught WP:SOCKing. (I have not invented this rule, I just take it for what it is.) Besides, I was far from being the only editor who has reverted your edits, that should give you pause.

Why the lady doth protest too much, methinks? Because you want Jesus born exactly 480 years after the Temple got rebuilt, see [1]. Your wishful thinking does not match established history. I don't have to be a scam artist to point that out. Your view is simply not taught as fact in any properly accredited Dutch history department, that should give you extra pause. We cater to what is taught in such departments, we don't cater to what you wish it were true. Wikipedia is not the place to undo WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

From Second Temple: Founded c. 537–516 BCE (construction). Meaning 485 BCE is a bogus date. If you mean Cyrus's decree from 559 BCE (which is otherwise not historically attested and considered mythical), then the Messiah arrived in 76 BCE. If you mean 516 BCE, then Jesus was about 65 years old when crucified. In fact, the Bible clearly states that Cyrus is the Messiah of the Jewish people. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Evert, the article is about the traditional Christian views about Jesus. A personal interpretation has no place in that. So there must be a religious denomination that, based on similar arguments as yours, draws the conclusion that Jesus (probably) in 5 BC was born. The estimate 4-6 BC as birth year is usually based on the fact that Herod the Great was still alive and / or the mention that Jesus was baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius. I have never met a relationship with the initiation of the new altar in Jerusalem in traditional Christian works. If it is the view of a specific (deviant) current, that could be mentioned (with reference to the source).

— User:Bertrand77 23 Dec 2016 08:00 (CET)

Why it isn't a traditional Christian view? Because no sane scholar posits views that are widely known to be false beyond redemption. In the future I suggest that you should not WP:Advocate patently bogus views, or push POVs to that extent. In short: there is no one to be blamed for your block except yourself. If you think that I have engineered your block by falsely accusing you of something which you have never done, see WP:INCOMPETENT. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

---