TL;DR: I think the comment was justified, though not a great idea to post.
You've taken that comment out of context. The very first comment that you posted on Raffzahn's answer was this:
"...equations like this" is shown in the screen shot I've included, I can adjust the wording of the question to reflect that if you'd like. Also, which Wiki are you proposing one should look at? – uhoh
This seems like needless pedantry. The abbreviation "Wiki" for "Wikipedia" is often used colloquially and "the Wiki" even more so. (Raffzahn has posted hundreds of useful answers on this site, and the use of abbreviation helps him with this. If other people have the time and inclination to edit those answers to fix some typos and conflation then that's up to them; often somebody does.) If you'd asked which Wikipedia page was being referred to, that might have been more easily disregarded as purely a request for clarification. The link was the main problem with this, as it is quite antagonistic to do so. (Not sure why; something about questioning somebody's knowledge of the language, maybe?)
Raffzahn [assumed that you had good intentions][be-nice], and did not immediately treat you like you were trolling. You then posted this:
The BBC has a bit of history with computers itself, so I wouldn't reflexively assume the video clip is poorly researched or thoughtlessly edited just because it doesn't mirror a Wikipedia article. Let's see what others have to say. – uhoh
Your use of the word "Wikipedia" shows that you knew exactly what Raffzahn was referring to here (or were at least confident). Also, this comment implies that you know which article Raffzahn is talking about, so there was in fact no need for clarification of any sort.
Your use of the word "reflexively" to describe Raffzahn's motivations suggests (regardless of your intent) a lack of thought on his part, and the phrase "just because it doesn't mirror a Wikipedia article" puts forward a rationale that is commonly considered a sign of poor research (the old adage "Wikipedia is not a primary source, and you should not use it" pushed by school teachers interested in teaching the ability to perform research) that Raffzahn didn't even have... for a claim he didn't even make. In short, an eloquent straw man: something that should not exist outside of polemic debates.
You could have genuinely misinterpreted what Raffzahn was saying, but that's stretching a bit thin now.
Even despite that final sentence ("Let's see what others have to say.") being easily interpretable as "you don't know much about this, and I am dismissing what you are saying", Raffzahn did not (openly) interpret it as this. His reply was:
To start with, what's shown is not an equation but a number and a questionmark in two lines with no visible relation. So much for 'BBC' has knowledge. Beside, THE BBC has no knowledge, it got employees like any other company, in this case journalists doing their work like anywhere else. They are selected for their ability to tell stories, handle their equipment and finish in time. This hasn't anything to do with 'poor' research. Especially when considering, that you assume something of this clip that has not been said that way. Not the editors fault. – Raffzahn
That was followed by your reply:
You used the word "equation" I called it an expression. – uhoh
Raffzahn replied again:
@uhoh mind to read the first comment you made again and then think again - especiallyy before writing? It was you who cited equation first, and I respond to the point you made. Please try to be resonable. – Raffzahn
And you replied:
Oh, indeed the caption is in error. Thanks for the personal dig as well, it flags the tone of this site, helpful for future reference. https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/06/21/rolling-out-the-welcome-wagon-june-update/ – uhoh
This seems a little sarcastic.
numbers don't have operators; it's an expression. It can be evaluated which may yield a number, but with both exponentiation and subtraction, it's not a number. And yet I don't give much importance to that, or think that it calls the rest of what you've written into question. – uhoh
This is what lead to Raffzahn's reply:
@uhoh Sure it's an expression - the same way as 123 is an expression. Somehow I get the feeling you just want to troll. Keep in mind, you are requesting other to spend their time on your issue. For free and fun. Giving a tude isn't exacly helpful. I just spend about two hours of my time giving you a somewhat detailed look at your question, so it might be fair if you may want to spend at least a few seconds to think about you comments - don't you think so? (Ofc, if you'd be willing to pay my rate, I'll take anything you want to dump during the time payed) – Raffzahn
Personally, I think that Raffzahn was justified in saying this. Though it was still not the right thing to do; a custom flag for moderator attention explaining what was happening would have been a better action.
If I were in this situation, I probably (~70% likelihood) would have done the same as Raffzahn did, despite it not being the best way to diffuse the situation. If I had noticed that it was an issue of moderation, however, I'd have flagged and left it to one of my fellow moderators to deal with.
Putting on my paranoid hat, it's much easier to interpret your actions as malevolent than benevolent. You posted messages that seem designed to provoke a reaction, dropped a link to an SO blog post (and in doing so, basically saying "authority figure says don't argue back"), covered your back whilst throwing another punch ("And yet I don't give much importance to that, or think that it calls the rest of what you've written into question."; implying that Raffzahn was criticising your question) and then posted an out-of-context comment on meta to try to get people on your side.
You almost certainly weren't doing this... but other people don't live inside your head. We don't know what your intentions are. So, and this goes for everybody, be nice.