User talk:Prcc27/Archives/2021/July

POV-pushing

Don't try and team up with other problematic editors to push unreliable content into Wikipedia in service of a POV. It's the sort of behaviour which long term is likely to get you sanctioned. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Alexbrn: Nobody "teamed up" with anyone. I hope in the future, you will be more clear in your edit summaries, avoid edit warring, and take disputes to the article's talk page to further clarify issues and disputes. Prcc27 (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTBURO. Your efforts do not seem focused on improving the encyclopedia's content. Alexbrn (talk) 07:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Alexbrn: Of course I am focused on improving the article. From my end, it looked like you were removing a source without sufficient explanation. And since the source didn't appear to be a "letter", I didn't quite understand why you were removing the source. In your edit summaries, it's important to "be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess your changes accurately." And no, I'm not trying to use this quote to be bureaucratic, but rather to let you know that these kind of disputes can easily be avoided with clear comminication in the edit summaries and the article's talk page. Prcc27 (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Again, WP:ONUS applies. You were acting as a booster for an editor who has repeatedly tried to add this content to the article for months. If you were truly focused on content you'd have looked at the source - even looking at it shows its a comment on an article, no not usable for anything really. Did you look, or are you playing policeman to "help" your ally-in-POV? (I also notice you active on the COIN in a supportive, amplifying, role). Alexbrn (talk) 07:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
        • @Alexbrn: I wasn't aware that this edit was disputed in the past. I did go in the edit summary and noticed the source was in the article several months ago, so I assumed it was the status quo. When did you last remove the edit (aside from today and May 29th)? I did look at the source, but please keep in mind that I only saw the word "comment" at the top on one of the links. When I clicked on the other links for the same source, I did not see "comment" at the top of the page. I feel like you're the one acting like a police officer by interrogating me, instead of assuming good faith. The COIN is about a problematic user and I decided to address my concerns since they removed my comments & another user's comments- which lead to a user giving up on the article and removing it from their watchlist. And the user was citing their own source in a POV and promotional tone. You're quick to point the finger at me for "POV", but are completely silent on their POV and disruptive behavior. Curious, are you teaming up with that problematic user..? If so, shouldn't you worry about being sanctioned? Prcc27 (talk) 08:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
          • That "Comment" is the classification of the content given by the publisher/PUBMED, so is authoritative. If you click through to the published version it says "correspondence" at the top. I find it hard to "assume good faith" when an editor is adding content to Wikipedia without, apparently, even looking at it. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
            • @Alexbrn: This link has neither of those words at the top AFAIK. Prcc27 (talk) 08:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
              • No, that's the PMC version. I said the published version (i.e. by the journal itself). Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
          • Oh, and I don't know what happened with the Talk page snafu, but this kind of thing is typically the result of a H:EC (or sometimes, even a mediawiki software bug). Did you try and sort it out when you noticed it, or just save it up as a weapon to use against another editor in future? I know which course of action would be more helpful to the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 08:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)