Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Talk:Havana syndrome. Tags: Twinkle Reverted |
revert trolling from Project Skepticism Tag: Manual revert |
||
Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
{{ping|RandomCanadian}} Since you are so much smarter than the entire editorial staff of North America's premier newspapers, why are you editing Wikipedia instead of running their newsrooms? [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene#top|talk]]) 04:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC) |
{{ping|RandomCanadian}} Since you are so much smarter than the entire editorial staff of North America's premier newspapers, why are you editing Wikipedia instead of running their newsrooms? [[User:Geogene|Geogene]] ([[User talk:Geogene#top|talk]]) 04:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
:I don't care about your passive-aggresiveness. What I care is about what is written in reliable sources. As you surely know, it's always better to go directly to the original source, instead of playing a game of [[Chinese whispers]]. Hence right to the scientists and not to the journalists. And then you realise the journalists, as is common with [[WP:MEDPOP]] sources, have got it wrong. But that's not surprising, because science is a complex issue. What is needed is a modicum of intellectual rigour: looking at multiple reliable sources and seeing what they say, instead of jumping to conclusions based on what one newspaper says. Try taking a look [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+19+AND+origin&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=journalcategory.medline Pubmed] (or [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+19+AND+bats+AND+origin&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=journalcategory.medline this], which seems to go filter things more effectively, since all papers inherently mention the consensus opinion). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC) |
:I don't care about your passive-aggresiveness. What I care is about what is written in reliable sources. As you surely know, it's always better to go directly to the original source, instead of playing a game of [[Chinese whispers]]. Hence right to the scientists and not to the journalists. And then you realise the journalists, as is common with [[WP:MEDPOP]] sources, have got it wrong. But that's not surprising, because science is a complex issue. What is needed is a modicum of intellectual rigour: looking at multiple reliable sources and seeing what they say, instead of jumping to conclusions based on what one newspaper says. Try taking a look [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+19+AND+origin&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=journalcategory.medline Pubmed] (or [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=covid+19+AND+bats+AND+origin&filter=pubt.review&filter=pubt.systematicreview&filter=journalcategory.medline this], which seems to go filter things more effectively, since all papers inherently mention the consensus opinion). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]]) 04:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC) |
||
== June 2021 == |
|||
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#EDIT|delete or edit]] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at [[:Talk:Havana syndrome]]. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]. If you would like to experiment, please use your [[User:Geogene/sandbox|sandbox]]. ''Wikipedia does not allow editors to remove or edit other editors' comments on talk pages, with very rare exceptions. These are listed at [[WP:TALKO]]. The basic rule is: "'''Never''' edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning..." |
|||
Your actions in deleting another editor's comments were in direct violation of this rule.''<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> [[User:Gronk Oz|Gronk Oz]] ([[User talk:Gronk Oz|talk]]) 07:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:08, 1 June 2021
Please step back, take a deep breath, and try to practice AGF
Geogene, When an editor says "that is not what I said" or "you misunderstood what I said", replying by insisting that you know what I said better than I do is simply unacceptable. It is entirely possible that I did not explain my point as well as I could, but that does not excuse your behavior. Also, the idea that I have "lost" an "argument" about what I said is...c'mon man, surely you can see how bizarre that sounds, right? Take a deep breath, step back, and try to remember that this is a collaborative project. And please do not attempt to tell me, or any other editor, what our comments mean again. Hyperion35 (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, @Hyperion35: let's talk about this post [1].
- you tried to ping me, apparently to make damn sure I saw it (even though I was already very active on that page, and had been replying to you consisently)
I AM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT RS OR MEDRS STANDARDS
shoutingLemme give you a tip: when someone says "you misunderstood what I said", your response should not be to immediately tell me what I said.
Overt condescension, unsolicited "life advice" given in an aggressive contextI am giving you a chance to strike
demanding a gesture of submissionyour bad faith
AGF violationpersonal attack
perhaps?trollish comment
PA Geogene (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- I pinged you mostly to differentiate who I was responding to, my initial comment appeared to be responding to another editor due to how it was threaded. Don't believe me, check the edit history, you'll see I added the ping in a minor edit after the main comment. As for the rest, you repeatedly mis-stated and mis-represented my comment, I used all caps to emphasize the part you kept mis-representing. The rest was advice that you might want to step back and consider. No threats intended, implied, or given. Wikipedia isn't about "winning arguments". It's about collaborative discussion. As I said, if an editor tells you that you misunderstood the meaning of their comment, ask for clarification, don't double-down and try to "win the argument" over what the other editor said. Think about it, how was that supposed to end, with me stepping back and saying "yeah, you're right, that's really what I meant"? As I said, when an editor says "I didn't say X, I said Y", AGF means specifically not turning it into an argument of "no, you said X, you said X!"
Courtesy notice
Template:Z33 RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
@RandomCanadian: Since you are so much smarter than the entire editorial staff of North America's premier newspapers, why are you editing Wikipedia instead of running their newsrooms? Geogene (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't care about your passive-aggresiveness. What I care is about what is written in reliable sources. As you surely know, it's always better to go directly to the original source, instead of playing a game of Chinese whispers. Hence right to the scientists and not to the journalists. And then you realise the journalists, as is common with WP:MEDPOP sources, have got it wrong. But that's not surprising, because science is a complex issue. What is needed is a modicum of intellectual rigour: looking at multiple reliable sources and seeing what they say, instead of jumping to conclusions based on what one newspaper says. Try taking a look Pubmed (or this, which seems to go filter things more effectively, since all papers inherently mention the consensus opinion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)