User talk:GvdlZpv

January 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Daniel Tammet, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your latest change because you used a book to refute criticism about the book. How did the book address concerns raised in critiques of the book after it was published? —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * the information added was an observation made about the criticism based upon and backed by, clear citations provided in the book. At no point was there any mention of refute of this criticism within the book itself and at no point was there any indication of absolute objectivity within the observation raised; and rather there was a specific effort to make clear the subjective nature of the argument being made.GvdlZpv (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)GvdlZvp


 * The book is a primary source. It appears that you're drifting into the realm of synthesis and original research in trying to address the critics' concerns yourself by citing the book. —C.Fred (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Expand on Synthesis? I am merely trying to provide balance and context to readers who may take this criticism at face value. It would be unbalanced and thus enter into bias if this wasn't provided for readers; especially when the book itself actually eludes to the exact opposite of this criticism, although not addressing it directly. I trust that you have the right intentions in mind and, that in some perspective you are quite right. However, Wikipedia is not a marketing tool and I'm sure you know better than anyone (as someone who has been on the platform for 15 plus years) that Wikipedia should be treated as such when edited; making sure that it provides as wide-ranging and unbiased of a perspective on a topic as possible. GvdlZpv (talk) 10:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)GvdlZpv