User talk:Forevertruthsayer
Welcome
|
Please see
Please address the section in which I have tagged you Talk:2020 China–India skirmishes. Thanks. DTM (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
Hello, I'm Andrew nyr. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Macdonald–Laurier Institute, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Andrew nyr: Errrrrrr I'm not sure what you are talking about. What do you mmean I didn't provide a source? Part of my edit was taking out an unsourced allegation...as per my edit summary. Were you referring to the broadbent institute part? Forevertruthsayer (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
July 2020
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Thomas Sowell, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. I have no idea why you said that the section above didn't have similar comments, as it did. The sourcing problem was just where the sources were located. I moved them, added one additional point from one of the sources. Doug Weller talk 15:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Oversight on my part for saying there was no equivalent sentence. But i stand by what I said about the sentence having no citation because that's actually what happened. Until you came along, there was no citation for that sentence. Forevertruthsayer (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
I reported your vandalism to delete Objectively verifiable info that you clearly want to hide
This is just a courtesy to let you know that I have reported your vandalism however if you want to reply to me and give your reasoning. Go ahead however I am not convinced that you are arguing in good faith.
I don't appreciate any China hawks trying to minimize information and delete them because they don't want the public to know about it. You made gas-lighting claims to me. One was even suggesting that Market Watch article never refereed to the study as a John Hopkins peer-reviewed paper. Who else do you think it was referring to? It was obviously referring to Deborah's work who is an expert in China-Africa relations at Johns Hopkins University. Look her up.
Market watch ARTICLE clearly used those exact words and FYI. even that paper was also both received and accepted by "Area Development and Policy Journal" that has a policy to publish peer-reviewed papers and rejects the ones that doesn't pass its minimum standards.
There is also nothing wrong to point out where the study hails from in regards to country and university. If a hong kong university was where that study came from. It gives readers context to say where it's actually from. Saying that it's from John Hopkins is just an objective way of giving readers an idea of where the study came from. Puffery is only when you make promotional claims that can't be verified.
Saying that it's an academic study from Johns Hopkins university and PEER-REVIEWED and not from some random person making baseless unchecked claims like the many political pundits (already promoted on wiki). is Not PUFFERY but just the minimal facts that literally has 4 extra words yet you seem threatened by that truth ironically. Gurnardmexico66 (talk) 05:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)