User talk:TheListeningHandAgain
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hi TheListeningHandAgain! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, try the "Suggested edits" module top left on your homepage, or you can always find a task here:
Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! I was previously an editor thelisteninghand for years! T'is a wonderful place. TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
One thing
For future use, instead of starting the same discussion on several pages, pick one place for your thread like Talk:Veronika (cow), and then write something like "There is a discussion about a suspiciously clever cow at Talk:Veronika_(cow)#Verification?, your input is welcome" on the other pages. Known, to the people who know these things, as WP:APPNOTE.
Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks and yes I know I've been scattergunning a bit. If you also think this is 'suspicious' would you start an RFC? TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- No, afaict, the article seems to be following the sources reasonably well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
- And yet you're continuing to do it. So consider this a formal warning against WP:BLUDGEON/WP:FORUMSHOP/WP:DEADHORSE. DMacks (talk) 03:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
- I must defend. It is your choice to accuse me and issue this warning rather than continue input to the discussion. This is not WP:DEADHORSE and while my persistent posts indeed look like WP:BLUDGEON it is not the case and your action I believe is WP:UNCIVIL. This article is only three weeks old and is highly controversial. Perhaps you disagree that it is controversial, which would lead you then to your current action. At the risk of further bludgeoning I must restate that there are no independent witnesses to this science-changing event. It has been three weeks, the report was on 19th Jan 2026 and still no other camera has filmed this cow, no journalist gone to look. For what it is worth I have AI confirmation from Copilot "No one outside the original research team has directly witnessed Veronika's tool use" - at today's date.
- OK I may be making the mistake of applying scientific rigour where that may be inappropriate. But in this instance we have an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim which is being made by two people, Mascaro and Auersperg, and that does not amount to the necessary weight of evidence for science. I state that the video is AI generated which is definition of WP:OR without a source, as is much of my comment. I am alerting editors to that possibility in case they are unaware. Any talk page may have unsourced comment, that's not unusual or wrong as far as I know.
- Hoaxes are difficult to unmask if they are any good. Archaeoraptor took years to unravel. As time passes and there continues to be no independent verification, it begins to beg the question. Why is there no scientific scrutiny? Wikipedia's voice being used to state that a cow uses tools is WP:UNDUE. Citations that cows do not use tools do not exist and that paradox is what this hoax relies on. Please withdraw your warning. TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
 |
Hello TheListeningHandAgain! The thread you created at the Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
See also the help page about the archival process.
The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing |