Psychologist Guy
Joined 7 April 2017
Latest comment: 49 minutes ago by Vinyasi in topic What Wiki Tag Justifies "Crazy Edits"?
What Wiki Tag Justifies "Crazy Edits"?
editRegarding...
What is your criteria? I'm flabergasted.
Is it the quantity of additional text?
The citations of colon cancer growth becoming arrested by acetic acid is worth retaining unless you assume that if some authority had claimed that Jarvis is a quack, then it doesn't matter if someone else comes along and refutes it, not by saying so, but by giving us cause to question the prior critic as possibly being opinionated, or else formed their opinion prior to this new evidence which qualifies Jarvis' revised condition as being controversial, but certainly no longer quackery. Vinyasi (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- This is a bad edit [1] that violates multiple Wikipedia policies. If you do something like this again you may be blocked. I find it hard to assume good faith over viewing your edits. You are inserting personal commentary into the article, adding sources that fail WP:MEDRS, adding unsourced content that is against WP:OR, adding off-topic content, none of which mention Jarvis. It's not good editing. And yes the content about "Students recreat[ing] an artificial volcano using baking soda, vinegar and red food coloring" is crazy, that has nothing to do with the article. Please only add on-topic content. Nothing you added has anything to do with Jarvis or mention him. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- I see you have already been warned about this kind of bad editing before [2] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- How can Jarvis be mentioned when he’s long since dead? How can what he promoted be junk science when science is validating the usefulness of vinegar in so many ways?
- I admit it’s not the best edit, but it’s not a useless edit. So, your deletion is inappropriate. A rewrite would be more appropriate along with a re-organization. Vinyasi (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Vinyasi, your edits to D. C. Jarvis were highly inappropriate, and Psychologist Guy was very right to revert them. To come across phrasing such as "We mustn't let our emotionally driven prejudice replace our discrimination", "The fact is", "It remains to be seen" in a supposed encyclopedia article is very jarring. Are you aware of the use of talkpages? They are the place for such observations, in discussion of an article — the article itself is not. Admittedly, there were some unexpected style choices in the article before, such as "Wrote one reviewer" (I just changed that one). Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC).
- How long am I supposed to endure the silence of a talk page before taking action? Vinyasi (talk) 14:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Vinyasi, your edits to D. C. Jarvis were highly inappropriate, and Psychologist Guy was very right to revert them. To come across phrasing such as "We mustn't let our emotionally driven prejudice replace our discrimination", "The fact is", "It remains to be seen" in a supposed encyclopedia article is very jarring. Are you aware of the use of talkpages? They are the place for such observations, in discussion of an article — the article itself is not. Admittedly, there were some unexpected style choices in the article before, such as "Wrote one reviewer" (I just changed that one). Bishonen | tålk 14:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC).