User talk:Hob Gadling/Archive 3

Accusing other editors of being "profringe" at FTN

I wasn't kidding. Diff it, strike it, or explain it at AE. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

After he called me a "conspiracy theorist" for explaining the current science on climate change denial? If that is not profringe, I don't know what is. You have no leg to stand on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(Especially when you have to explain why you went after me and not after him.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit off-putting to have someone who zealously proclaims their support of science while lashing out at the people around them. If anything it undermines your position. PacMecEng is a she BTW ~Awilley (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Another one who is blind on one eye.

If the "people around them" are attacking science and trying to put science on the same level as the anti-science crowd, what is a supporter of science to do? --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Easy.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Keep your arguments in the top 3 tiers. I don't know you, but from what I've seen so far you seem to spend a lot of time in the bottom 2. ~Awilley (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Awilley Levivich, curious that you two have not thought to confront PacMechEng for their advocacy of climate change denial talking points. Why is that? jps (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is advocating any climate change denial talking points in that conversation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

So what do you think PackMechEng's "cereal" comment refers to, then? jps (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I think "are you being cereal?" is a humorous way of saying "are you being serious?" Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

In the context of global warming, it is a well known climate denial trope that was put into the mouth of Al Gore by South Park because they thought he was being alarmist. The creators apologized for doing it. PackMechEng surely knows this, even if you don't. [1] jps (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Wow you've got to be fucking kidding me JPS. "Are you being cereal" is a way broader cultural meme than a single South Park episode about Al Gore's ManBearPig being real. hahaha I'm LOLing while writing this. Wow, just wow. Get out of your bubble man! No, people who say "are you being cereal" are not, like, dogwhistling climate change. Damn, talk about an extreme ABF interpretation. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm manifestly not fucking kidding you. Time to Get Cereal. This is its provenance. Deal with it. jps (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you really think that this comment is not a climate denial talking point? PackMechEng is accusing Hob Gadling of being a conspiracy theorist because, I presume, the Merchants of Doubt is apparently a conspiracy theory. That's not a climate denial talking point? jps (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

No, that's not a climate denial talking point. And no, she does not call Merchants of Doubt a conspiracy theory. What are you even talking about? That comment isn't even talking about climate denial... that's not even talking about climate. Are you linking to the right diff?

Let me give you some examples of actual climate denial talking points:

• These changes in climate are part of a normal cycle
• We can't be sure if these changes in climate are anthropogenic
• This warmer-than-average winter disproves that the earth is warming

Unless you have diffs of PME pushing those kinds of things into articles, calling her "profringe" or a "POV pusher" are personal attacks. People who disagree with you are not fringe of POV pushers just because they disagree with you. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 19:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the book "Merchants of Doubt"? Or even the article Merchants of Doubt? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Or any other literature on climate change denial? (Because people who did read that will recognize the scenario I laid out as pretty much what the science says.)

Again: Why do you go after me, but ignore the much more insulting phrase "conspiracy theorist"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Levivich You have to admit she called Hob Gadling a conspiracy theorist. Putting aside Wikipedian fantasies of civility for a moment, either that was done because she is correct and his argument is a conspiracy theory or his argument is not a conspiracy theory. If his argument is not a conspiracy theory, then her talking point, at its best and most charitable interpretation is providing cover for climate change denial that persists in arguing against these claims. I see no other alternative. jps (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Tell me if I understand: you're saying that your accusations that PME is anti-science, pro-fringe, and POV pushing, are justified, based on her use of "Are we being cereal right now?" to mean "Are we being serious right now?", which you contend means she is a climate change denier, because using "cereal" to mean "serious" is a well known climate denial trope, whose provenance is the 2018 South Park episode Time to Get Cereal? Do I have that right? Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Let me understand: Are you willfully ignoring the fact that she called Hob Gadling a conspiracy theorist? jps (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course I am. You are way too old to be making the "but she said a bad word, too!" argument. Anyway, it's at ANI now.

(BTW, "cereal" meaning "serious" was already in urban dictionary by 2003–South Park didn't coin that homonym–and "lettuce be cereal" is about as old a joke as "honeydew I love you but we cantaloupe".) Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:33, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

So... why do you think she called him a conspiracy theorist? I mean, I don't really care about the name calling. I care about why she thought he might be a conspiracy theorist. jps (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You care because you're trying to extract that if she refers to climate change as a "conspiracy theory" then that makes her a climate denier and therefore the PAs become true and no longer PAs. There's one of those Latin phrases for that kind of logic... ad somethingorother, it's the one where you argue by substitution – saying that A = B and B = C and therefore A = C – but you make the logical error of confusing similarity with equality. That A is similar to B, and B is similar to C, doesn't mean that A and C are the same thing. PME didn't call climate change a "conspiracy theory", she called Hob a "ranting conspiracy theorist", and while that is, itself, a PA, it is more or less excused under the "provocation exception", coming, as it did, in the middle of a veritable personal attack sandwich, with Hob calling her various names both before and after she called him a ranting conspiracy theorist. While I cannot condone PME calling an editor a ranting conspiracy theorist, it simply doesn't excuse calling her anti-science, pro-fringe, POV pusher, and so forth. Because, you see, insulting a believer in climate change is not the same thing as climate change denial. For example, I may think the Pope is an asshole, but that doesn't make me a satanist. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

At least now I'm getting down to an actual discussion with you. Let's take your example of the Pope being an asshole and you not being a Satanist. One may justifiably ask, "Why do you think the Pope is an asshole?" Is it the case that PME thinks HG is a conspiracy theorist because he described the content of Merchants of Doubt? Or is she just calling him that for other reasons? There may be some conspiracy theory I haven't thought of here, but at the end of the day the only ones I can think of at least provide succor for the climate change denial approach.

That aside, even though I may think the Pope an asshole and you say he is an asshole, it would not be unreasonable for someone to point out that such rhetoric in certain contexts could be seen as anti-Catholic. Even if there is some innocent intent to divine (hey, I'm willing to be convinced), the impact of the rhetoric in saying that HG is a conspiracy theorist in this context seems to me to serve a WP:PROFRINGE perspective. It is, in fact, very reminiscent of how I've seen such rhetorical games played in Wikipedia in the past.

jps (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"And of course this "provocation exception" is a one-way street that can only be used in PME's favor, but not in mine. Same as your turning a blind eye to what PME said but not to what I said. And of course this has nothing to do with you standing of the same side as PME.

The science on climate change is clear. There is virtually no disagreement within science, the skeptics have died out and only denialists are left. Saying "that is not the case, so yes, it is up for debate" [2] is a fringe position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, in fact the denialists are exactly following the tobacco industry playbook. Stage one was to deny there is a problem, or claim there's science on both sides while pouring money into "science" that says what you want. Once that becomes unsutainable you move to stage 2, which is to admit the problem but minise the scale or impact. Then when that becomes impossible to deny any longer you go to stage 3: it's too late to do anything and in any case people have to be given the freedom to choose for themselves. Guy (help!) 16:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• @Hob Gadling, based on your response here and at FTN, escalating the attacks instead of dialing it back, I have asked for some administrative input at WP:AN/I. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hob_Gadling ~Awilley (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

@ජපස: I'm replying to your AN/I question here, so as to not further clutter the noticeboard with tangential discussion. You asked why I didn't ask PackMecEng to clarify how she decided Hob was a conspiracy theorist. The answer is that it already seemed pretty clear to me. Hob Gadling had gone off in kind of a long-winded post [3] that accused several entities of conspiring to fuel the denial industry. PME seized the opportunity, exploiting the logical fallacy that expressing a theory about a conspiracy makes one a conspiracy theorist. It was a cheap shot, and probably deserved at least the mild scolding that I gave in this edit summary. As for her pushing fringe science, she's dancing around refusing to take a clear position that I can see. I honestly don't know what her game is...from past experience I suspect she finds some enjoyment in trying to poke holes in the arguments of people she sees as overzealous activists. The reason I approached Hob Gadling instead of her was because his behavior was worse. PME has now apologized and stricken her personal attacks, while Hob Gadling had doubled and tripled down on his. I hope that answers your question. ~Awilley (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

"that accused several entities of conspiring to fuel the denial industry"

Wrong! At the time, I had already explained why this is not a conspiracy. Why do you people not listen?

"his behavior was worse" - from the perspective of your own anti-science position.

When she retracted, you had already done your double-standard act, so that cannot be a justification for it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

PolitiFact

Saying bad stuff about liars is not left-wing, but they tend to favor the Democrats, based on how much they talked good about Obama and bad about Trump. I'm not reverting your edit. - Ferctus (talk)

You don't get it. Every honest and competent person who checks on how much Trump lies in comparison to anybody else, maybe with the exception of Boris Johnson or Jair Bolsonaro, will come to the conclusion that Trump wins. Go on, revert it. It will be reverted by the next user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 00:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleted article

You delete my article from Wikipedia I will never forget & forgive you...🤬

• • • A COMMON ANGRY MAN *** Shubham r pande (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not at fault. It is you who never attempted to understand what Wikipedia is.

And it is still not an article.

Please learn how to learn. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

an oversight

Hob, I just noticed that I overlooked one aspect of your suggestion on Talk:Falun Gong, which was that we should identify the various issues in dispute, and then you would create separate discussion threads to address each. Sorry I blew past that. It seems like a reasonable idea though, and happy to reformat my comments as needed if you still wanted to do that. Cheers. TheBlueCanoe 18:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

no problem and no reason to go to my Talk page. Just do it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:BAIT

Nuff said. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Important notice re White genocide conspiracy theory

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(I am notifying all of the last three editors to that talk page if they have not been so notified in the past year.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

FTN deletions intended?

Hi Hob, this edit added stuff to the FTN, but at the same time deleted a lot of comments by others from later discussions. Don't know if that was intended. . . dave souza, talk 12:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Source

I have a source https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans Please link it in PolitiFact I don't know how to do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:0:E0A0:B851:B3D4:E40F:DB7E (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. Also, you should make suggestions about improving articles on the Talk pages of those articles, in this case, Talk:PolitiFact. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

John Ioannidis

>Studies are frequently wrong (John Ioannidis says it is most of them), meta-analyses less frequently.

Why would you, upon discussing meta-analysis, refer solely to the inventor of said meta-analysis? Uchyotka (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Ioannidis did not invent meta-analyses. Stop lying, or better: Go away. You are not making any sense, and you should read Dunning-Kruger effect. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Rittenhouse

I adjusted the wording and reset the votes because only you and I had voted so far. For the record, I agree with your points, even though I think it's a small issue compared to the larger issue of whether the incident should be mentioned in the article or not. In any case, see what you think of the new wording. JimKaatFan (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Request

Please don't go around accusing myself or others of whitewashing etc. I understand we don't agree with things but to assume my disagreements stem from a wish to whitewash is an accusation of bad faith. It's more problematic when you, in several cases, put this information on article talk pages as it shifts from a discussion of content to discussion of the editor. I sure we will disagree in the future but I want to keep it a 100% civil disagreement. Take care, Springee (talk) 13:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I will take a page out of Peter Gulutzan's book and respond "that's not what I said". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, I hope my concern is conveyed even if you don't feel you specifically did something. I'm not referring to this incident alone. Regardless, when you single out my comments, more than once, and say "whitewashing" the effect is the same. Springee (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I already got that. The equation

article about right-winger + you editing = removal of negative stuff

is just synchronicity or something like that. Non-causal correlation. Meanwhile, I don't think your presence here improves my User talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry civil outreach didn't work. If this continues to be an issue in the future I will take it to ANI. I will not try reaching out to you in the future. Springee (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

“Crackpot”

It’s interesting to score Russell on this. He certainly scores 20 points for item 22, and another 20 for item 25. Brunton (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) that rocks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Lyall Watson Change

Hi

Just on your reversal of one of my edits on the Lyall Watson page, I can see your point. And I am, of course, just a wee minnow in the Wiki-sea! However, the idea that the 100th monkey idea may yet be true is not mine - it came from Watson himself, as stated in this NYT obituary. (I must say I thought I'd cited this, and didn't). Can I retain it and cite it? Or not?

Thanks Lighteater (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Since I am also just one user, this belongs on the Talk page of the article. If that is what he said, I don't care. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Great Declaration

Would you mind reverting the most recent substantial wave of changes of Great Barrington Declaration? I'm sure they don't add anything worth retaining but I've done too many reverts on that page already. GPinkerton (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

With pleasure. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles for your consideration

Hi! Thank you for keeping Wikipedia sane. I was exploring and saw a few articles that might merit a place on your List of pseudoscience pages:

• Demonic possession
• Exorcism
• Exorcism in Christianity
• Exorcism in the Catholic Church
• Minor exorcism in Christianity
• Exorcism in Islam
• Gay exorcism

And some concerning examples:

• Martha Brossier
• Dorothy Talbye trial
• Antoine Gay

Epilepsy and dissociative disorders have been "diagnosed" as demonic possession and "treated" with exorcism, making these fall within pseudoscience. Although most versions are not claimed to be scientific as such, some of the claims of demonic possession lend themselves to scientific investigation, and indeed medicine has something to say about it.

I recently removed a "Notable frauds" subsection header from the "Examples" section of Demonic possession lol. I would like to improve these articles since there are few, unreliable, religious, sometimes very old sources, taken literally and in many places the reality of these phenomena are assumed or stated. I'm somewhat new to editing, any suggestions are welcome. Brainrape (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess you know the WP:FTN... --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Renommiert

Hi Hob- Just FYI, re your recent edit summary: "Renommiert" would be more "renowned" (no doubt adopted from the French "renommé"): Cambridge, LEO. Still, I agree that neither "well-known" nor "renowned" need be included in that sentence. Eric ^talk 03:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Advocates of conspiracy theories involving Jews has been nominated for renaming

Category:Advocates of conspiracy theories involving Jews has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't do categories anymore. See Category talk:Climate change denial. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rude

Your last comment at Energy (esotericism) was especially dismissive and uncalled for. You have clearly not been following the conversation and have not addressed my suggestions. Please try and be more constructive in future. AlexClwn (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I asked which changes you wanted to propose, and you did not answer. Instead you continued foruming. That was rude. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on the topic, not the editor

Hob Gadling, I'm pinging Awilley as an admin who has previously warned you about ad hominem attacks in your edits. This edit here [[4]] included this comment directed at me, "He cannot know it is just synchronicity again, as in those cases when you just happened to be, by random chance, always in favor of edits that make climate change denialists look good." That is a clear ad hominem and not an acceptable article talk page comment. Springee (talk) 13:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

ok

Yes 138.43.60.24 (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Crocheted creations

An outbreak of crocheted creations locally has brought light relief and cheer in dark times. Here's a couple of them.
Thanks for all your work pushing against the de-enlightenment of creationism,

Wishing you and yours merry festivities, and a happy and healthy New Year!
dave souza, talk 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Dunning–Kruger effect

Hi, I am preparing to make some edits on the subject article and I note that you have commented on the talk page. Whatever edits I make, I want to make sure that you agree with my changes, if you care. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, lots of weird changes indeed. Go ahead. I will notify WP:FTN too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Anniversary

	Vicennalia
	Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on MEDRS/RS debate regarding fringe lab leak theory

Your comment on whether MEDRS are mandatory before editing a claim implying the lab leak theory is not a conspiracy/fringe idea is requested by this Diff in this page, please take a look. Forich (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack removed

Hi Hob Gadling, I've removed a personal attack you made on Talk:Dennis Prager. It was a personal attack as it used someone's alleged political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing their views. Do not make any further personal attacks or you may be blocked from editing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be very unfamiliar with the close connection between anti-science ideology and political conservatism. Recommended reading: The Republican War on Science. Also, have a look at The Encyclopedia of American Loons. That site has some Democrats, some lefties, some Greens, but most American loons belong with the crowd that has recently inspired a takeover of Washington by force. As for Prager's views on science, read Climate change denial to learn how scientific they are. I also recommend WP:FRINGE and WP:LUNATIC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh right: I did not use that for "dismissing their views", I used it for dismissing the relevance of their views. Those people are all practically clones when it comes to baseless opinions about climate science. That's how echo chambers work. It is not necessary for every Wikipedia article about a right-wing figure to point out the same crazy belief, unless noted by reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wait, what? WP:NPA says "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack..."

It takes some creative misreading of the removed comment to construe it as an attack on another WP editor. "Yet another conservative..." is plainly about Prager himself, and scarcely merits an NPA warning. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't take it as a comment directed at me. Perhaps WP:FORUM applies but not, in my view, WP:NPA. Springee (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course it wasn't directed at you. It was just me giving further explanations why that sentence does not belong in the article. The Wikipedia rules about primary and secondary sources are not immediately intuitive. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, Callanecc has warned you about personal attacks (ie you are aware, not that the above discussion was a PA). You really need to tone down the aggressive rhetoric as it's a CIVIL problem. I feel this comment is over the line [[5]], "I have no idea what path your alleged logic followed to arrive at that conclusion.". It's fine to say the editor's logic is flawed or you can't follow it. However, "alleged logic" pushes this into taunting or being dismissive of the editor themselves. It does nothing to make your point stronger while decreasing talk page civility. Springee (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The word "therefore" suggests logic. But there was no logic. Therefore, the logic is only alleged. Stop harassing me with your imagined "personal attack" straw men. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only editor who has commented on your civility. That isn't harassment. Still, we can take it to the drama boards and allow others to review it if you would rather. Springee (talk) 15:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I just saw you tried before to summon Callanecc here so you both can heap on me. But if you had read carefully, you would have noticed that not only I, but also Just plain Bill actually refuted his claims about personal attacks. This reminds me of the time when somebody claimed I had a "criminal record" because another person had unsuccessfully reported me to the admins.

I edit in articles in the fringe area. People who push fringe POVs will try anything to score points. So, of course there are editors who "comment on my civility". But usually they aren't as persistent as you, at least not on my Talk page, therefore their attacks cannot be considered harassment. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery

• There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stonkaments (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the good job you are doing. You can expect a little extra something in your next Wikipedia paycheck. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Great! The cabal paycheck already came, I mean, would have come if the cabal existed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal (TINC). We discussed this at the last cabal meeting, and everyone agreed that There Is No Cabal. An announcement was made in Cabalist: The Official Newsletter of The Cabal making it clear that There Is No Cabal. The words "There Is No Cabal" are in ten-foot letters on the side of the International Cabal Headquarters, and an announcement that There Is No Cabal is shown at the start of every program on the Cabal Network. If that doesn't convince people that There Is No Cabal, I don't know what will. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

RfC on racial hereditarianism at the R&I talk-page

An RfC at Talk:Race and intelligence revisits the question, considered last year at WP:FTN, of whether or not the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is a fringe theory. This RfC supercedes the recent RfC on this topic at WP:RSN that was closed as improperly formulated.

Your participation is welcome. Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 22:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks and FYI

Thanks for adding your response to that one editor on R&I. It's always good to feel like others have your back. I appreciate your edits and your attitude and think you're a good role model for how a Wikipedian who sometimes works in controversial areas should carry themselves. As a Sandman fan since I was a kid I dig your username too. One thing, which is really not a big deal to me but I figured might be okay to mention: my gender identity is "dubious and undisclosed" on this platform. So if it's not too much trouble to remember, they/them for me please. In appreciation, Generalrelative (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops! This would not have happened to Neil Gaiman, I guess. Sorry! --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Ha, no need to apologize! I do recognize that most "generals" identify as male ;) Generalrelative (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

But not necessarily their relatives :) --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

from Project veritas response

I'll reply as you misunderstood, but explaining is apparently not allowed on the page. ""I did NOT say this, this is a strawman" You literally said has decided to cite articles that say "far-right" over the mountain of others who do not say "far-right"". You completely misinterpreted that, I meant that they say something else, that is conservative or right-wing. I thought that was clear. The preponderance will say right-wing too.

"Also, you have already been told that "conservative" and "far-right" are not mutually exclusive. Go away, you lost." If 5 reliable says "right-wing" but 1 says "far-right", does that mean 6 sources said "far-right"? I feel its an obvious bias to lump them together. No one writes "right-wing, but not far-right, group." We assume they are saying they are not far-right. So we should choose the most frequent definition that seems fair base on what we actually know and can cite. We don't know they have far-right ideologies because there is no reliable source to cite that outlines their political views. Calling some far-right without evidence in a newspaper generally can't be removed through libel laws, it's just too difficult, so it happens all the time. So, citing it as evidence is clear bias.

I think everyone on that page knows full well they don't have far-right views, but it seems many of the editors are very politically motivated and have heavily negative views about PV because of who they have targetted, so they want it to say "far-right" to slander the group.Mikeymikemikey (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not interested in your repetitions. It was clear from the beginning that this is your view, but your view is wrong. That is not how reliable sources are used.

The right place to discuss this is on the article Talk page. If the subject is not welcome there, it is even less welcome here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

PragerU climate change edits

Hi there Hob

I see you've also had a few run-ins with Springee's relentless pattern of tendentious editing. I think their recent challenge to the PragerU page[6] is really typical of what one editor called the 'Springee injunction'. This invariably sees Springee start a talk page discussion to make a trivial objection to critical material on a topic related to right-wing politics, often summon friendly editors, stonewall stonewall stonewall, and then treat the presence of the frivolous talk page discussion as an injunction to prevent the material being added. They often then simply outlast all the other editors involved, and if the material is added, Springee cries NOCON and sometimes weaponises this to make formal editor complaints (they are extremely litigious in this respect). Springee recently narrowly dodged a sanction at WP:AE - unfortunately it seems most editors involved just got distracted by other things. I'm compiling material in my sandbox to launch a new WP:AE, which I believe I have plenty of evidence for, as Springee should clearly not be editing on partisan political matters. Free to respond/email me if you have any other concerns about Springee Noteduck (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds familiar... --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Pierre Kory

You seem to have removed a whole slew of comments at Talk:Pierre Kory. I assume that was done in error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Kory

Looks like something went wrong with this edit.[7] with portions of the page going AWOL. But you were also adding something new? Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Back off

You don't get to revert edits because you think the information provided is "boring". I've added a source and am prepared to die on this hill & engage in a revert war with you if you revert my edit again. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

This gave me the best laugh I had today. Since you did not even tell me which article you are talking about, I had to look it up - it was Patterson–Gimlin film - [8]. What you did is look up some rule someone published, add two numbers together, write the result into an article about a subject that is not even mentioned in the source, and add the publication of the rule as a souce. This is called WP:OR, specifically, WP:SYNTH. Look it up.

If this were allowed, all Wikipedia articles would be full of sentences like "As of 2014, she has been married for six years" and "The distance between <city an article is about> and Mars is between <insert minimum distance between Earth and Mars here> and <insert maximum distance between Earth and Mars here>.

You are a silly person, your opinion of yourself and of your ability to write Wikipedia articles is way, way out of the league of the real you, and you are essentially threatening to get yourself indeffed without me having to do anything, by violating Wikipedia rules until that happens. I will stop feeding you now. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Reverted, douchebag. Keep at it. PDMagazineCoverUploading (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you are trying to insult me with words like "asshole" and "douchebag", it is not working. The only effect is that you further confirm the fact that you do not have any valid reasoning for your edits, and that the only path open to you is the tactics that worked on the classmates you bullied in school.

As much as a enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate to people that they have turned up unarmed in a battle of wits, I have other things to do. You are in the wrong place anyway. If you feel up to actually defending your edit by reasoning, go to the Talk page of the article. But if you just want to continue waving a twig, showing your tusks, beating your chest, and shouting ook ook ook, Wikipedia is not for you, and you should do that in very different websites. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Moore (consultant)

Please stop reverting my changes and discuss at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

You sound as if I had reverted you more than once. I did not.

"He has falsely claimed that there is no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change" - The word "falsely" is exactly right. That claim is pure denialism. Pseudoscientific bollocks. Your deleting the word "falsely" is WP:PROFRINGE editing. Go argue on that Talk page that carbon dioxide does not contribute, I dare you.

I do not want you on my Talk page. You are not nearly as amusing as my last visitor, so your next message here will just be deleted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Q

Hey, do you mind moving your comment up a bit on the fringe theory section of Game Changers? before the "od" section or just after "Dumuzid". I'm hoping editors will engage with the two concerns I mentioned.

Thanks. RBut (talk) 10:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

But it does not fit there, it was an answer to the last one. I don't think it will be a problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Your comments on the Pentagon UFO video page - WP:Civil

May be you should check yourself here. I think your comment here was neither polite or professional "Now that is what a good reason looks like. No comparison with any of that "skeptical POV is fringe" crap." Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what you think. You are not welcome here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please strikethrough this comment of yours, or change the wording. This appears to be a WP:civil issue. Thanks

• "That is what I said. Nobody says anything else. But I also said other stuff which answers your clucking about it not explaining any videos: it explains details of sighting, which UFOlogists usually ignore, because they want to not explain flying objects and not to explain flying objects. How about you leave this Talk page alone for a while? You are clearly confused, you repeat yourself, you ignore what people say, you stop in mid-sentence before you come to the signature, and you generally keep flooding this RFC by leaving your opinion turds everywhere. I cannot think of the exact wording at the moment, but there is a WP:something term for a single person trying to dominate an RFC like this. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2021 (UTC)" Diff Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So you regard criticism of your way of debating as uncivil. That is your problem, not mine. You can strikethrough your own deficient logic if you want, but there is no problem with what I said. Well, you seem to really dislike the turd part, so I will strike that one. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

We should always call a turd a turd, IMHO. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, in this case, it was just a row of ASCII characters, and "turd" was just a colorful image for it, inspired by the feelings it triggered, so, WP:SPADE can be Wikilawyered into not applying here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I know, I was just joking around. FWIW, I agree with your critique of the style of argumentation there. BTW, the WP term you mentioned is WP:BLUDGEON, which most definitely applies to a couple of editors there, especially in light of the effort in the section below to exclude a skeptic because he wrote his piece before the ODNI report came out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes pleaseHob Gadling strike that out, so your comment complies with WP:civil. Thanks. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone who keeps bothering me here although not being welcome has nothing to teach me about civility. I struck out your comments. Actually, I wanted to delete them, as they do not belong here, but that would destroy context. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Luc Montagnier

Hi, re this, the user hadn't reverted me, they had rewritten what I had added earlier, and I reverted per WP:BRD so we could work it out on the talk page, which we are in the process of doing. It it reasonably bad form to jump into a cordial dispute between two editors. Brycehughes (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

You introduced that mainstream scientists grew more receptive claim which was not and is not backed up by any scientific sources, and PaleoNeonate removed it and wrote something else instead. That is not a BRD situation where your version is the established one. You were the bold one. But this who-did-what stuff is very boring, and I will not waste any more time on it. The important thing is that Montagnier's half-baked ideas are not getting more air than they deserve by getting them associated with herds of scientists being observed by journalists as changing their minds about something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with first sentence but agree it's boring. Montagnier is a crackpot, but there was a lot written in this encyclopedia during the height of the anti-lab-leak hysteria that now needs to be balanced somewhat, which is the attempt here, and which is being worked out on the talk page. Brycehughes (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hob is exactly right. I can't think of any rational reason why a partial revert wouldn't count wrt WP:BRD. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok now this is really boring. Brycehughes (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, the lack of evidence for a leak was "anti-lab-leak hysteria"? Which is now balanced by pro-lab-leak hysteria, it seems, although the lack of evidence is still the same. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Right (I think?), which is an argument for mostly removing the lab leak component and leaving the certifiably crazy HIV stuff, etc. Brycehughes (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

"Certifiably crazy" is not the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia articles. He said something which was not covered by evidence back then and drew criticism for it. Now there is still no evidence for it, but people make a lot of noise about something which is somehow similar, so let's remove it? That is not how it works.

There are already far too many article talk pages where lableakers fight for rehabilitating their pet idea, based on flimsy reasoning involving people with PhDs shrugging their shoulders about it instead of shaking their heads. I am against making that list longer by adding my user talk page to it, and I am the boss here, so I declare EOD. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

One sided

This is a one-sided attack on an organization that has a right to present alternative perspectives. 2600:1700:5970:78F0:F475:EC97:6939:C3FE (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I can only guess that you are talking about one of the many organizations Wikipedia calls out for spreading crazy ideas which are not based on evidence, but I don't know which one you are concerned about.

From the list of my recent edits, it could be the Ministry of AYUSH, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, The Wall Street Journal, the Hindutva, or the Thule Society.

It does not matter, my response is the same: yes, they have the right to talk nonsense, and proponents of science have the right to say they are talking nonsense. Wikipedia is a science-based encyclopedia and needs to take sides here. See WP:FRINGE, WP:LUNATICS, and WP:YWAB. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Dylath Leen (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

"aggressive, pushy loudmouth"

Please take a moment to refresh yourself with WP:NPA re this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ayurveda&oldid=1033842969 wherein you called me an "aggressive, pushy loudmouth". Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I did not call you one, I said you should behave less like one. Read WP:NPA yourself, and you will find it is not covered by it. It is not about you but about your behaviour: attacking people because they revert your rule violation. If you had just said, "sorry, I should not have done that", then everything would have been finished. But you continued pretending you made no mistake, that it was everyone else's fault, and, just as an example, when I clearly laid out the situation and gave you a hint about how your behaviour is perceived by others, you ignored the explanation and whined about the hint instead. I gave you up as a hopeless case then; I will just wait until you are indeffed.

Now please leave, you are not welcome here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not insult users

I get the frustration, but as the recent spat elsewhere demonstrated (User talk:82.8.23.174), if you use belittling language it makes it harder to tell another user not to.Slatersteven (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

Hi. I've opened an investigation into several sock puppets I believe you have been having issues with over at the Physicians for Patient Protection article and talk page. If you have any further evidence/info to add then please do so as it appears they are the same person who have been abusing the page and attacking you, as well as other editors like myself in the past. [9] Please support. Thank you. Inexpiable (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

UFO Pentagon videos - Dispute resolution noticeboard

There is a dispute resolution open at the DR noticeboard in which you have been involved Here Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notice

At Talk:Nicholas Wade; the IP recently disrupting the article with tags has gone on to ANI, but as far as I can see they haven't notified anyone. So, here it is, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tagging_ettiquete. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Neutrality of a secondary research paper written by a chiropractor, but published in a medical journal.. Thank you.

--Jmg873 (talk) 20:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

woops, realizing now that this wasn't necessary. You are not the subject of the discussion. Sorry for the confusion, I was trying to be courteous. Jmg873 (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep it civil

You're obviously discussing a pretty sensitive and heated topic over at Talk:Chiropractic. However, that is no excuse for:

• telling someone to f off;
• casting aspirations;
• disregarding calls for civility; or
• invoking Josef Mengele.

It's not like you can't be civil. Comments like this and this are 1000% more helpful and constructive than any of the above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)What has the last comment got to do with Mengele? Aspirations or aspersions? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: aspersions; it was a spelling mistake. As for Mengele, arguably nothing. It just makes tensions higher than needed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

As a thank you for the unexpected bout of laughter you provided me when I saw this. Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

mmmm... baklava. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Crop circle book removed from Further Reading

Hi Hob,

You’ve removed the book I put into Further Reading. It appears from your comments that you haven’t read it, but wish others not to read it. You have by implication asked about reviews.

Amongst people who have actually read the book, Amazon customers have given it a five star rating https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1857702565?pf_rd_r=6238V1BZ2PND3JBQPZ45&pf_rd_p=6f2bfee9-92a9-4ec5-94b5-ed7bbe78d734&pd_rd_r=d2a76672-5f93-423e-bec5-c90cc6121a06&pd_rd_w=rky2d&pd_rd_wg=dAXge&ref_=pd_gw_unk. Goodreads customers who have read the book have given it a 3.9 star rating https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1011819.Vital_Signs?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=0N8vGbwhAW&rank=1.

The Amazon customer whose comments appear at the top of the list from my search above states “Written by an enthusiast with a wealth of knowledge and mind boggling personal experience, with an open thinking mind. However humble, not pushy with his view and ends the book on a very neutral, thought provoking, mysterious note. Good for the skeptic, good for the avid enthusiast”. (My emphasis).

I would expect those contributing to Wikipedia also to have an open thinking mind. Indeed, I had previously understood that one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is a neutral point of view. Your grounds for removing the book are that “It seems to be just another trash publication”. Far from neutrality, this comment appears to display a quite appalling level of bias. In fact, it implies either that you feel that anyone with an opinion which is different from your own must be wrong; or that only one set of views on this subject is permissible in Wikipedia. Which is it? Please answer this question.

Personally, I happen to agree with the second paragraph of Valjean’s User Page: User:Valjean .

Please understand that there are two legitimate points of view on crop circles. One is that they are all man-made. The other is that most crop circles (not all) are an unexplained phenomenon, aka a mystery: that is, something to which we don’t yet know the answer. Maybe we will in time, but at the moment, we don’t. My analogy is always - what would the ancient Romans have made of a stereo system if it had been transported back in time to a Roman temple and one morning, it appeared working: they would have considered it black magic or perhaps a miracle from the Gods: but we now know better. And maybe we will one day with crop circles.

Please look at this crop circle and tell me if you believe it’s possible for men to do this in the dark without making any mistakes: http://www.cropcircleconnector.com/2016/Ansty/Ansty2016a.html. Personally, I don’t, and the page has had six million views, so I suspect that many others think the same.

Then please reinstate the book I have added to the Further Reading list: or alternatively, please explain why it is only permissible to have one viewpoint on this subject, when in the real world, there are clearly two. The book is 180 pages of research and photos on the subject, which you have dismissed and removed as “trash” without reading it, or – in my personal opinion which I hope would be widely shared – without providing any legitimate substantiation for so doing.

Thanks,

Geoff. Geoffhl (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This does not belong on my user talk because it is relevant for the article. It belongs on the article talk page. I'll copy it there and answer it there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on WP:RACISTBELIEFS?

Hi Hob,

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about whether this [10] and this [11] comment are clear violations of item #1 of the WP:RACISTBELIEFS section of WP:NONAZI: That white people are more intelligent than non-whites. And if so, would you suggest that anything can or should be done about it? I appreciate your perspective and your contributions to the discussion as always. Generalrelative (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, but 1. it is only one in a list of seven and therefore a bit weak, 2. since WP:NONAZIS is just an essay, I don't think it has any judicative power.

On top of that, I try to avoid dragging people to the Qadi here. Others are better at that than me. I am more of a try-reasoning-until-it-is-clear-it-is-pointless-then-let-others-handle-it guy. So, out of my depth here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(talk page gnome) That's an essay though, but there's WP:TE and WP:ADVOCACY too (isn't it understood today that "race" is not a subspecies, that part of what IQ measures is health, that there may be familial genetic inherited factors, but not at the "racial group" level, that there is more individual variation in any group than between groups, that social stratification is plausible to explain any gap in average group scores, etc...) If all of that is correct but that only a few relevant scientists still stress for a group-genetic relationship to intelligence, those should be presented as individual attributed statements (if reported and analysed by better independent sources, then WP can present that analysis)... And anyone trying to make Wikipedia suggest that that there's some scientific consensus for a group-genetics-intelligence relationship is doing advocacy, pushing WP:FRINGE POV and pseudoscientific arguments for racialism... I don't have the time to look at my notes immediately, but there's a history on Wikipedia of groups and individuals with a conflict of interest trying to do just that. Some have admitted to abusing other wikis in the past and appear to also disregard WP's WP:TOS. Some have admitted to having a conflict of interest and doing it because their revenue was at stake. Others may also do so for political reasons... If you would like, I could check my notes and post more details next week. —PaleoNeonate – 07:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your responses. @PaleoNeonate: Over at the discussion on FTN FormalDude has suggested a neutrally worded message at ANI. I'm unsure of how that would go without overwhelming evidence (there is a tendency here, I think, in contentious issues for outside observers to take a "pox on both their houses" attitude). In any case, feel free to follow up on my talk page or at FTN if you like so we can leave Hob in peace. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive this message and delete when read

Hey, I appreciate your reply to another editor here [12]. Strike does work, you just have a "/" in the opening tag. Again, sorry to bother you on your talk page. Springee (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Robert K Temple

If you want to brand his book as 'pseudoarchaeology' give an RS. You are here long enough to jjiw the rule. Just because it's your opinion isn't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.97.166 (talk) 07:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's an obvious fact. But I hope it's irrelevant because there will be a merge. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Is there a wiki rule which says 'obvious facts' don't need RS? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.97.166 (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes. WP:SKYISBLUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

See also [[13]]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.97.166 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

That's what I said. Can you please stop this? If you want to talk about an article, say it on the Talk page of that article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

had you given a reason for your revert in the first place I would never have come here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.97.166 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I said "can you please stop this". I should not have to clean up after you all the time, inserting a carriage return and a signature. Next time, I will simply revert your edit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick FYI - that is an ESSAY, not a Wiki guideline or policy - in short, everything in a Wiki article must be referenced to a Reliable Source. -HammerFilmFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.19.34 (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Every time you feel tempted to say, "it is just an essay", you should first actually read more than the first lines of the essay. In this case, it says,

However, many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information. This can lead to several mild forms of disruptive editing, which are better avoided. Ideally, common sense would always be applied, but Wiki-history shows this is unrealistic. Therefore, this essay gives some practical advice.

So, no, wrong. The page explains stuff that is actually in the rules. It does not invent new rules. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Reston

As I saw the FTN section get archived I checked and did a few minor changes. Feel free to re-audit, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 14:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping

I saw your ping, I will respond later this morning, when I'm strapped to the Chemo chair and have free wifi and an ipad. They strap me down because the first time I had this, I woke up on the floor. You'll understand I'm a little busy until then. regards Roxy the dog. wooF 07:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ugh. Take all the time you need. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings @ Hob Gadling,

This request is being made since you seem to have engaged in topics related to Superstition.

Requesting your visit to the article Draft:Irrational beliefs and help expand the same if the topic interests you.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:41, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I am not very good at expanding articles. Not my thing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You should archive some of these sections!

The section list is super long! It’s like 200 sections in the same page, so much that the page has been zoomed out! Please fix this! GregYoot (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I just copied an archive thingie from somebody else's page. Let's see if it works. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

(removed notice) I have blocked you for violating WP:CIVIL; you told someone to fuck off here, and made a personal attack. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@331dot You are blocking an editor for alleged violations committed (respectively) about 5 months ago and 2.5 years ago? By policy, blocks shall be preventative and not punitive. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

• I apologize, I did this after the posts were pointed out to me, I did not carefully check the date and assumed it was an immediate problem. This is my error and mine alone, and I apologize without condition. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  No problem. (Except all those edit conflicts.) --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

  Looking through my new Talk page archive, considering the fact that the user who told me I should archive it [14] is the same one who started this [15]: all edits he complained about had been discussed on my Talk page, and that is where the links came from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Trump supporters

Would you please consider editing your comment at Talk:Anthony Fauci to remove "It is nice to hear that you consider "Trump supporter" a "smear", but a reliably sourced fact is a reliably sourced fact." Aside from that bit of snark, you answer the (supposed) question well, but it helps no one to add fuel to fires already burning too bright. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨  16:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your turn. Do it better. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:SchreiberBike: You thanked me for telling you to do it better, but did not even try find a better response? Please refrain from coming here to tone-police me in the future. Tone-policing adds fuel to fires, have you thought of that? No need to answer, that was rhetorical. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Seemed a bit backwards from the source, so have rephrased it as "Fauci's advice was frequently contradicted by Trump, and Trump's supporters alleged that Fauci was trying to politically undermine Trump's run for reelection." It's not Fauchi's place to bow to the Prezzy's medical expertise. . dave souza, talk 19:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Much better now. I like it when complaints by profringe users lead to articles becoming less fringe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hello Hob Gadling. I apologize for the distractions at talk:Bret Weinstein. I try to remind myself not to respond in the moment, and sometimes I fail. You're right of course, I should have saved my vaccine status particulars for "later", should someone have taken the tack I anticipated; pre-emptively inserting it was practically begging for backlash. I'm human, I can be an ass-hat, a dumb-ass (related terms?) and more terms I will reserve that are between me and my god, or words to that effect. Two years of COVID have frayed my nerves. I wish it would just. Go. Away.

I will now go away, off to my more typical efforts here on WP of fixing grammar, and copyediting for clarity. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess I have similar problems... Sorry. --Hob Gadling (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Deaths of anti-vaccine advocates from COVID-19

I think this draft is ready for mainspace, and would like your opinion. I have moved the list to the talk page for now, to develop a specific consensus as to how it should be included. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom

Hi Hob Gadling. In the recent ArbCom case about GSoW, you made a reference to people asking "Are you, or have you ever been, a member of...?" I was just wondering if that was maybe a reference to a question I asked at COIN: [16]. If that is the case, I will maybe just add a note to explain the Catch-22 situation between COI and OUTING. Otherwise, I don't intend to comment on the case. This question is supposed to have a friendly tone and does not imply any sort of conflict or hostility against you, by the way. JBchrch talk 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

That refers to the general atmosphere, not to specific contributions. I can't even remember where to put you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Reception

What method do you like to use to judge the reception of a recent study? MarshallKe (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is this relevant for my Talk page? Go do this on whatever article Talk page this comes from. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Because this isn't about any (particular) article. MarshallKe (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Then what has it got to do with me? Go to Village pump or Help desk or somewhere. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

You're experienced in this matter. Not everyone bothers checking reception of a study, and I know for sure that you do. Why are you acting like such a giant inflamed butthole about this? MarshallKe (talk) 14:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Because you are bothering me at my home with something that obviously does not concern me. I do not know how to answer the question in that generality, and there are people who are better at it then me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

No context was provided, but in general the reception should come from reliable secondary sources that are not only press releases in the news (i.e. see how WP:MEDRS mentions systemic reviews). If it's so recent that it's not put in context by better sources, it probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia yet. —PaleoNeonate – 06:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)