User talk:Gtoffoletto

This is Gtoffoletto's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science He should not be given alerts for those areas.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

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 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)[reply

]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

More bad faith. I read sources I use, as any competent editor does. Bon courage (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your words: "I just asked you if you had read the article". Bon courage (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at