User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gtoffoletto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Bad behaviour
When I write "that headline captures the gist of the article fairly well", that is obviously a statement about how the article content matches its headline. So for you to respond[1] with "I think you should read the article first rather than just the title" looks very much like deliberate goading. If you repeat such behaviour I shall open an WP:AE case for you, as the last thing this topic needs is editors playing games. Bon courage (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Bon courage you seem to be describing your own behaviour here. Why are you escalating this trivial situation so much? You accused me of several things including "trolling", "playing games" etc. while I just asked you if you had read the article. The headline is entirely irrelevant to the edit I am proposing so it is a legitimate question. That's all. The edit is fairly trivial and simply reports some simple and factual numbers so all this is quite unnecessary. If you don't like it no problem. We'll hear what other editors think about it. However, if you wish to open an WP:AE I have absolutely no problems with it but I would prefer not having to deal with the time waste and to just edit calmly the article together. Merry Christmas. {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, asking an editor if they have read an article they are dealing with assumes they are either incompetent or stupid. Especially since I had actually quoted the article text and referred to how its gist matched its headline. The obvious implication from you is that I am being dishonest. I am merely concerned with getting the content right and I expect long-term editors to accord some basic level of WP:AGF and respect to their colleagues. You have been warned. Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Will you take a deep breath and calm down? The content you disputed is almost verbatim from the article. So the fact you cited the article title alone makes it seem like you didn't read it in its entirety. The title may have simply (understandably) mislead you. We are talking about two lines here about lawsuit numbers...... let's not waste our precious energy and time unnecessarily. And I'm late for a Christmas dinner now..... Happy holidays! {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- More bad faith. I read sources I use, as any competent editor does. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think competent editors (like you and I) can also sometimes read things hastily or make mistakes :) That does not mean they are editing in bad faith or that they are "incompetent or stupid". See you on the article talk page! {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Your words: "I just asked you if you had read the article". Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- I think competent editors (like you and I) can also sometimes read things hastily or make mistakes :) That does not mean they are editing in bad faith or that they are "incompetent or stupid". See you on the article talk page! {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:51, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- More bad faith. I read sources I use, as any competent editor does. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- Will you take a deep breath and calm down? The content you disputed is almost verbatim from the article. So the fact you cited the article title alone makes it seem like you didn't read it in its entirety. The title may have simply (understandably) mislead you. We are talking about two lines here about lawsuit numbers...... let's not waste our precious energy and time unnecessarily. And I'm late for a Christmas dinner now..... Happy holidays! {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 15:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- To be clear, asking an editor if they have read an article they are dealing with assumes they are either incompetent or stupid. Especially since I had actually quoted the article text and referred to how its gist matched its headline. The obvious implication from you is that I am being dishonest. I am merely concerned with getting the content right and I expect long-term editors to accord some basic level of WP:AGF and respect to their colleagues. You have been warned. Bon courage (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Isaac Newton on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of Billionaire space race for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Billionaire space race, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billionaire space race until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Fringe science
My concerns are regarding the tendency of journalists to be incapable of distinguishing science from science fiction if the latter moves more copies of a newspaper combined with an environment in which finding reasons to fear Russia is also good business. I don't believe that adjusting the balance of the article in question to support these fringe claims is going to improve the neutrality of it. Simonm223 (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your fears. But that is why we select only Reliable Sources and follow what they say. We shouldn't "make it up ourselves". {{u|Gtoffoletto}} talk 19:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm challenging that the recent investigative report is reliable to claim a specific weapon was used to cause this condition. Simonm223 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)