Please see this result on the topic of Genocides in history, and read the warning to both parties there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment copied here from an article Talk page for additional discussion. -Xenophrenic)

You don't seem to understand what a personal attack is. Me stating that you're behaving badly isn't a personal attack as Wikipedia understands it, especially if I explain why. Additionally, you're just doing it again. Just now you're again bizarrely just edit warring against my edits at History of syphilis. In general I don't remove your edits but that's always your first and foremost reaction when it comes to others. You accuse me of weasel words (in your definition a personal attack) yet quote an article as stating adding "another wrinkle to a debate that doesn't seem likely to be resolved any time soon" when a scientific editor earlier criticized you of using that exact article as a source on the page. You don't care, you add it back. I even wrote that if we're quoting magazines let's quote them fairly. Of course you remove any and all of my magazine quotes and keep yours. You also keep adding studies cited by no one, which the same scientific editor criticized you of. There is an interstellar difference between a peer-reviewed study cited by 60 and a 2-page report cited by no one from unnotable scientists. You of course remove any mentions pointing this out. You also keep edit warring the two separate theories into one without any understandable reason. The subtheory should clearly be marked with two stars as subcategory, but you keep edit warring it to be mentioned BEFORE the main theory's evidence and studies, as if to discredit the main theory and studies in a blatant way. You even misquote the Italians as "criticizing" the 2011 study, which they did not. There were no "scare quotes" added by me except if you mean leading scientists quoted in the few mainstream articles written about the matter. None of this behavior is new to you as you were given a hefty block just over a month ago for edit warring. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Etsy. Of course I understand what a personal attack is. You can get an idea of what is, and is not, a personal attack by looking at the examples given here. Of particular relevance to this situation is this one: Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. And no, expressing concern about your use of weasel words is not a personal attack. Also, if you want to discuss editor behavior issues, can you please keep the discussions on user Talk pages (or file a formal report at an administrator noticeboard), out of consideration for the other editors at article Talk pages who wish to focus on article improvement?

As for "scientific editor", I don't know who that is. I suppose I'm a "scientific editor", when it comes down to it. I do recall adding that quote from The Atlantic, which is a reliable source. I also recall an editor removing it, with an edit summary saying "Controversial claims like this require a strong secondary source - a review article from an academic journal. Atlantic article is a poor source for scientific claims. The study has been published, but not yet cited (Google Scholar)". When I added it back, I was careful to make sure it was accompanied by a strong secondary academic journal source, one that has been cited by at least another source according to (Google Scholar). So I'm not sure what your complaint is.

There is indeed a difference between peer-reviewed papers which are heavily cited, and those that have fewer citations, but both meet Wikipedia's reliable source requirements. And I'm sure you are aware that "number of citations" is not directly translatable to "accuracy", as some of the most heavily cited papers receive that many cites because they are heavily and negatively criticized. I don't know if that is the case here, but the bottom line is if you want to challenge the reliability of an academic peer-reviewed source, counting citations in Google Scholar is not the way to do it.

You also say I'm "edit warring the two separate theories into one without any understandable reason"? Do you realize they aren't "separate" theories? They are both "Columbian theories"; one being a more modern update of the other. And I'm not the editor who put them together; that was another editor (I linked the edit for you on the article Talk page). I agree that they should be together. And the lead-in to those theories still says there are two main categories of theories, so it makes more sense anyway.

As for "misquoting the Italians", can you please provide me with the exact quotation? I'd like to review it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]