User talk:Libfab2022

Welcome
Your recent Bold edit was Reverted. Per BRD, it's time for us to Discuss this on the talk page. Please don't edit war by reinstating the edit. Let's see if a consensus can form to keep it or an alternate version.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is shocking.
 * Your edit was scientifically biased, as is much of your "Controversy" page, which concludes on a very negatively biased note, putting on the same footing subjective reports and serious scientific research.
 * This is not up to Wikipedia quality standards or what they should be.
 * Please keep your edits at an objective, scientific level and avoid biases in your edits and comments: my edit was **not** bold, inasmuch as it limited itself to reinstate a reference to a scientific paper in a reference journal that you were bold enough to revert without any good scientific/objective reason, resulting in a seriously unbalanced overtone.
 * The only scientifically sound, recent paper that would possibly contradict Reiss's is Nittono's (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7730382/), which however made it specific that "Another characteristic feature of high-resolution audio, namely quantization depth or the precision of analog–digital conversion, was not manipulated in this study. The mechanism through which it affects listeners’ experiences is a topic of future research."
 * In other words, Nittono did not even consider one of the major factors that Reiss investigated.
 * Please consider that I hold a MSc degree in statistics: I am not talking lightly here. Libfab2022 (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't care what degrees you hold, or claim to hold, I could say I an Queen Bathsheba of the underworld it would not matter to the editors at Wikipedia. Also note, I did not make any changes, I only warned you about the BRD policy. You should not Edit War after you were reverted you should have taken the situation to the talk page of the article. -- VViking Talk Edits 15:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your explicit disrespect ("Queen Bathsheba", mind the overtones, please) for scientific competence and overall relativism sound quite contrary to Wikipedia values, no matter what editing position you may hold in the system (I see you are a heavy contributor). There is no room for scientific censorship here.
 * This scientific relativism of yours, to put it mildly, permeates the overall negative biases that you have been entertaining, disregarding scientific evidence and using non-scientific reports as 'counterevidence' placed on the same footing as sound research, in the 'controversy' page. Scientific relativism should not be allowed on Wikipedia, let alone suppressing neutral/objective references to research papers.
 * Thanks, however, for not reverting again what I restored, I appreciate any effort to reach a compromise. 86.227.146.198 (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)