User talk:EVisca
April 2025
[edit]
Hello, I'm Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Graham Hancock—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- And it's their second attempt to whitewash this article. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- How’s removing a subjective comment ‘whitewashing’? It seems to me there’s a few users trying to impose a certain narrative EVisca (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that removing an opinion is more constructive than leaving it EVisca (talk) 18:14, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's sourced. And although we certainly allow opinions, are you saying that nothing can in fact be pseudoscientific? Doug Weller talk 19:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- Truly remarkable how you gather that from my comment. I say “removing an opinion is more constructive than leaving it” and you infer “nothing can be pseudoscientific”. You’re taking bigger leaps than Hancock’s theories, Doug. EVisca (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I ask you a question and your response is that I'm inferring something? Please answer the question and don't try to read my mind. I didn't mean that. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Truly remarkable how you gather that from my comment. I say “removing an opinion is more constructive than leaving it” and you infer “nothing can be pseudoscientific”. You’re taking bigger leaps than Hancock’s theories, Doug. EVisca (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- No, it's sourced. And although we certainly allow opinions, are you saying that nothing can in fact be pseudoscientific? Doug Weller talk 19:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)