User talk:Hob Gadling/Archive 4

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Hob Gadling, I have just submitted evidence with regard to incivility and what I perceive to be POV problems in the skepticism area. Quite a lot of the diffs in the 'General atmosphere of incivility' section come from your edits. I just wanted to let you know.

My aim was to inform the Arbitration Committee about the general atmosphere of incivility, not to single you out in some way, and I did not mention your name. However, you may want to consider submitting some evidence of your own to put a few of these diffs in context, and/or think about saying something about them in the workshop. Or perhaps it is better not to participate as long as your name is not mentioned in the workshop, I'm not sure. Tryptofish and a number of clerks and Arbs have given some advice about this on Roxy the dog's talk page. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Apaugasma: thank you for the ping. I have now read your evidence. I had a rather strong reaction to it, that you were (metaphorically speaking, of course) throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks. Even if you don't mention people by name, it still comes across like you are criticizing them by citing their diffs. There are an awful lot of diffs repeated from earlier evidence sections, and about editors who are not parties (and at least one of whom has retired). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Some editors seem to be oblivious of ours being an encyclopedia, not a tea party. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: some repeated diffs I posted with the specific aim of discussing who would remove them (see here), and some have now indeed been removed. I fully understand your reaction, but I'm sure that you'll also understand that I, having been on the receiving end of some of this, have a somewhat different perspective. I am not seeking sanctions, and I sincerely hope that no sanctions apart from a warning or two will come from this case. What I do want, however, is an acknowledgment of the fact that there indeed is a civility problem, and that it needs to be addressed.

In the topic area where I edit, we are dealing with incompetent nationalist and/or religious POV-pushers on a daily basis. It does happen that I lose my patience and get a bit rough around the edges, but I don't think I've ever, even once, called editors out on being incompetent nationalist and/or religious POV-pushers. I don't 'call a spade a spade', because far too often, the spade turns out not to be a spade at all. If you go through my talk page edits like I went through Hob's you will find very little to throw at that metaphoric wall (in fact I invite you all to do so: I've found it's a great way to actually 'get to know' an editor a bit, which breeds sympathy). Anyway, it is very much possible to give obnoxious editors succinct policy-based replies, and to AGF and to be at least 50% friendly as long as you're not 100% sure about what they are trying to accomplish. This is not happening in the skepticism/fringe area, and that needs to change.

@TrangaBellam: I'm not entirely sure if I get your meaning, but building an encyclopedia will work much better in the general atmosphere of sharing a cup of tea than in something resembling a battlefield. Even the worst offenders here are really just homely pieces of laundry that need to be put in and out of the washing machine on time, while we are sitting in the kitchen having tea. If you look at my contribs you'll see that I'm a regular in the laundry room. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not submit any "evidence". I think this whole thing is partly an overblown trumpeting of a few cases where people made mistakes, which can be remedied easily, and partly a toxic attempt to get rid of editors with a certain viewpoint. I also think that the arbitrators are capable of discerning which is which just by looking at the quality of you people's reasoning without my help. I am watching the spectacle though, and I do not need any text from you on my Talk page. Never did, never will. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Just adding a justification why I do not want to see you here. When I tell someone that they have used a fallacy, such as a strawman, then the correct response is either, "you are right, that was bad reasoning" or "you are wrong, it was good reasoning because [..]" and not "Waaah! You accused me of bad reasoning! That is ad hominem!" [1]

Of course, pointing out the bad quality of someone's reasoning is the exact opposite of ad hominem. Go read the article, you don't know what the term means.

If you want to debate, learn how to do it first. And when someone tells you what you did wrong, don't just dismiss that without asking yourself whether it might be right.

From my previous exchanges with you, I have no expectation that you will learn anything from what I am saying here. I expect you will complain about it instead. And I have no intention of having to repeat it again and again. But that will happen every time you come here, so, stay away from this page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Another wonderful example for this, which is extremely simple to understand [2]: If you can't see that 'qi does not exist' is in direct contradiction with 'the existence of qi cannot be disproven', then you have a serious problem with understanding logic.

The statement

• "The existence of qi cannot be disproven."

is logically equivalent to

• "The non-existence of qi cannot be proven."

This statement (and therefore, the first one) is not logically equivalent contradictory to

• "Qi does not exist."

This is a special case of the non-equivalence of "X is true" and "X can be proven to be true". (Small additional explanation: "X" is "Qi does not exist" in this case.)

Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness theorem is based on this very non-equivalence. So, if we follow Apaugasma's "logic", we have to conclude that Gödel had a serious problem with understanding logic. The consensus is that he did not. Apaugasma does.

I post this here because there is nowhere else I can do it. There can really be no valid response to this except "What I said was wrong". I would accept that response (though I am pretty confident that it will not happen), but other "responses" are not welcome here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Corrected a mistake in wording and added a small additional explanation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

And if changing someone's statement "Qi does not exist" into "Qi necessarily does not exist", then pretending that that someone actually meant that, is not a strawman, then there is no such thing as a strawman. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hob, I think you've got a point, but there's also a rather straightforward reply to it. Am I allowed to post such a brief reply here? I don't think Tryptofish would like it if I further posted about this on their page, and it's also rather easier to do it here. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reducing the weirdness. Yes please. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page stalker says; thanks for dealing with this, glad I don't have that task. May I just add that QI does exist, I've seen it on television. Regards, . dave souza, talk 12:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's just keep it to the statement 'qi does not exist'. It's certainly correct that 'the non-existence of qi cannot be proven' does not render 'qi does not exist' untrue. But what it does do is render it baseless: if there is no proof that 'qi does not exist', it would just be an assertion, not a verifiable fact. Stating such unverifiable assertions is not what we normally do on Wikipedia. I think it's a reasonable assumption that when someone states in wiki-voice 'qi does not exist', they take this to be a proven fact rather than just another opinion. If it's not a fact, we should probably not be affirming it on Wikipedia. But if it is taken to be a proven fact, the contradiction with the source I pointed out does apply: 'the non-existence of qi cannot be proven' and 'it is a proven fact that qi does not exist' are mutually contradictory. In other words, it's the implied meaning of stating in wiki-voice 'qi does not exist' that contradicts the source.

Apart from Wikipedia normally dealing with proven facts, there is a further reason to interpret it this way: if the positivist premise that things for which there is no scientific evidence do not exist is true (and this premise is in fact held to be true by most editors), the statement that qi does not exist would be a proven fact (since everyone agrees that there is no scientific evidence for qi). It just seems more reasonable to suppose that the editor who added this holds the positivist premise to be true, and meant to (correctly, in that case) say that it's a proven fact, than to suppose that they added a baseless and unproven assertion.

But as Guy Macon recently pointed out, it would seem that there is some kind of consensus among Wikipedia editors that even if sources say that something can't be proven not to exist, we on Wikipedia can just safely say that it does not exist (I would add: because there's a consensus that the positivist premise is true). I do understand the reasons for that, and more importantly, I do recognize that there is indeed a widespread consensus for this among editors here. I've explained my view on this, and it is high time for me to drop the stick. Of course, consensus can change, but I don't think I'll be arguing this particular point for quite some time. Instead, I'll happily edit in other topic areas, as I usually do. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue was your claim "If you can't see that 'qi does not exist' is in direct contradiction with 'the existence of qi cannot be disproven', then you have a serious problem with understanding logic.". That claim is false, and I explained why. You basically admitted that your statement was false when you said, It's certainly correct that [..]. That is progress. But you did not retract your accusation that Alexbrn has "a serious problem with understanding logic". Instead, you changed the subject to "baselessness", which seems to be a justification of the accusation. Maybe I am reading that wrong.

About when someone states in wiki-voice 'qi does not exist', they take this to be a proven fact rather than just another opinion: Wrong. Reliable sources can say that and Wikipedia will take their word for it without demanding any "proof". Now, what is the source actually saying?

Edzard Ernst said [3], the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven in a context: Concepts such as the qi of Chinese traditional medicine are myths which enjoy the same status as religious faiths. Believers cling to the myth despite the evidence, reinterpret the myth to suit the evidence, or lie about the evidence to support the myth. Even though the existence of qi can neither be proven nor disproven, the related concept of a meridian system and acupoints does generate testable hypotheses regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture.

Ernst is saying that the concept of qi is baseless. Reducing these sentences, with their clear message, to the bland triviality about proof and disproof misrepresents what Ernst is saying; by quote-mining, it wrongly paints him as a fence-sitter, and using only that partial sentence is a pushing a fence-sitting POV.

So, why does he say "can neither be proven nor disproven"? Qi cannot be proven because, although it had the chance if being proven true if its effects are measured, it failed. It cannot be disproven because that is logically impossible. Those are two completely different reasons. Putting them in a subclause together with equal weight, is acceptable the way Ernst does it, because his focus is somewhere else, and he does not want to explain such basic stuff. But quoting only that subclause in a Wikipedia article is a distortion of the source.

When scientists measure an effect, and the result is zero plus/minus a small epsilon, they can with good justification say it is zero. They could also say, "The effect can neither be proven nor disproven". It cannot be proven because the null hypothesis could not be rejected in the measurement (but could have been), and it cannot be disproven because there will always be an error bar, an epsilon. The first is the result of the measurement. The second is a generally applicable triviality not worth mentioning. Putting the same weight on both statements is at least sloppy and at most dishonest. Honesty is very important to scientists.

Sometimes, when the result is zero plus/minus a small epsilon, there is a theoretical reason why there should be an effect (which is not the case for qi), scientists say instead, "if the effect exists, it is so small we could not measure it. We need better equipment so we can."

This "zero plus/minus a small epsilon" thing is closely related to Occam's Razor and to Popper's falsifiability criterion. (Which is not the criterion for pseudoscience, but is has its uses.) Qi is like Last Thursdayism, it cannot be proven incorrect in principle, so it is naive to demand proof. "No qi" and "no Last Thursdayism" is just the default position; the burden of proof is on the other side.

This is not "positivism". It is just normal science. Science would not work any other way because scientists would waste most of their time debating things with the same epistemological worthlessness as Last Thursdayism. The "plus/minus a small epsilon" stuff, with its Occam/Popper implications, is a thing scientists apply all the time, automatically, like signalling before you turn in traffic. It is probably not something most philosophers of science, sociologists of science or historians of science will know or care about. But they should, in order to understand scientists better.

Regarding your ban of my talk page: I decreed that when you came here as part of the general attack on skeptics that is going on at ArbCom, with its insinuations that it is somehow wrong to apply WP:FRINGE. (Since there will be people who think this refers to them although it does not: No, I do not mean that everybody there does it. Some do.) You seem to be not part of that anymore, and it seems you half-admitted that you were wrong, which I had not expected you to, so I guess there is no need for it. I just do not want the "you have a new message" alarm popping up all the time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Just one more small message then (my last, I promise!). Ernst compares qi with God, and the reason why its existence cannot be (dis)proven is the same as for God. Ernst (perhaps incorrectly, but that's another story) treats it as a metaphysical concept, which generates no empirically testable hypotheses and therefore falls wholly out of the purview of science. Saying that metaphysical concepts do not exist does not need science, and has nothing to do with science: it's a philosophical position (positivism). One can do science while endorsing that position or while rejecting it, just like one can do science with or without believing in God: it's not necessarily related. To make such distinctions is also a form of honesty and rigor, which is as important to philosophers as it is to natural scientists.

The whole goal of Russell's teapot argument was to ask: if we so easily reject the existence of something like the teapot out of lack of empirical evidence, why do we keep believing in something that has the weight of tradition behind it, but for which there is equally no empirical evidence, i.e., God? But today still, we're not going to state in wiki-voice that God does not exist, but we will do so for qi. Ernst just has the philosophical rigor to place them on the same level. We on Wikipedia will not, I've made peace with that now. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There is indeed a consensus (if you doubt this you can post an RfC and watch as over 95% of the Wikipedia editors who respond agree) that we should act as if Russell's teapot -- and more importantly the latest bullshit Covid cure -- don't exist, and we should say nothing about whether Allah exists -- even though pretty much anyone who has really thought about it will say that there is no evidence that either of them exists or doesn't exist. That's because Wikipedia articles reflect what reliable sources say, not what our WP:OR tells us is true. The wording we use when we act as if something doesn't exist is something like (from the Qi article) "The existence of Qi has not been proven scientifically". You will never find such a statement about Allah in Wikipedia. Instead you will find something like the first paragraphs of Existence of God. This is a practical decision. It is based upon the demonstrable fact that billions of people believe in one of the variations of "god" listed at God in Abrahamic religions and virtually nobody believe that Russell's teapot actually exists. Even people who completely reject the rest of Russell's argument agree that there is no teapot in orbit around the sun. Because of this, if we wrote the (entirely accurate) claim that the existence of Allah has not been proven scientifically all hell would break loose.

This relates to the current case at Arbcom. It would be a disaster to abandon the biases that I list at WP:YWAB. Our readers want to know whether laundry balls are worth buying. They want to know whether Thomas John (medium) knows personal information about people because of his psychic powers or because he has studied their Facebook accounts. They want to know whether Ayurveda practitioners are right when they say Mercury and Lead are medicines and not poisons that have killed multiple Ayurveda patients.

Those who prey on the gullible for profit would love it if Wikipedia started acting as if the bullshit they sell might be valid and might be invalid. You can see this in action if you study Young Earth creationism. The creationist constantly misrepresent minor disagreements among evolutionists over certain details as being support for a 10,000-year-old earth. Holocaust deniers do a similar song and dance, misrepresenting opponents as being in agreement with them.

The good news is that we don't have to decide these things. We just have to report what the reliable sources say about the various forms of bullshit people make a buck peddling. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Well put. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It is easy to understand that harassment campaigns (like at the talk pages of articles about proponents of COVID-19 misinformation) are uncertainty and divisive propaganda. Unfortunately by extension the reorientation of potential COI and BLP concerns about a few editors to a more general "coordinated skepticism" ARBCOM case undoubtedly can be exploited to this purpose. I indirectly warned about it at the opening, but desist from participating (I'm not involved and it would only give an additional impression of legitimacy to the idea, teach the controversy is a good reference). But that's also an issue with endless discussions with long posts that don't say much but repeat the same flawed arguments. It's normal that others get tired after a few rounds and assert that it's wrong reasoning for Wikipedia (this is why the WP:CPUSH essay exists and is often cited). The inevitable is that they'll more directly indicate to stop or will ignore last posts. Then there's always AE, but that too is often inefficient. In relation to Qi, I'll avoid repeating the scientific reasoning that I also provided at Tryptofish's page, but the best way to describe the lack of evidence without apologetic distortions is as simple as: "there is no evidence that qi exists" and if in relation to medicine, "there is no evidence that it can prevent or treat any condition". This is also compliant with WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV. —PaleoNeonate – 06:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Well I did minimally comment at the workshop today, afterall. —PaleoNeonate – 05:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hob, as someone who is highly literate in statistics and scientific methodology, I wonder if you wouldn't mind weighing in at Talk:Scarr–Rowe effect if you get a moment. Many thanks, Generalrelative (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That was super helpful. Much appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, when I read the request here first, I suspected that I would not be able to help... --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspected otherwise. Generalrelative (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

You’re doing most of the heavy lifting against the barrage of single-issue IPs. It is appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 18:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I had the impression that it is only one IP though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Hob Gadling. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. C. Santacruz (talk • contribs) 12:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

See? This is exactly what I mean. Not admitting mistakes, instead attacking. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sending hugs - Sgerbic (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For resolutely defending the integrity of enWiki in the face of...opposition. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

+1 to this. Wikipedia would be a far, far poorer place (though richer with batshit) without you around. Generalrelative (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this and this readily admit the interpretation that editors have targeted you for a special type of attention. The immediate goal for some of them seems clear. Please do not assist their efforts because, to use a basketball analogy, their willingness to play the man in this "case" is strong, and perhaps borders upon the fanatic. The project is stronger with you than without you. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Some think that I step over the same line you are dancing around, but the long and the short of it are that certain WP people don't like it when editors try to clear the field of the uninformed. I understand your frustration, but you need to let things cool down after a buzz from AE like you just had. Your opponent (the one praised in Dennis Brown's AE closure), who does seem partial to "unskewing" Wikipedia in a certain fashion, smells blood in the water and is hopeful that he can remove you from the venue for breaches of the arbitrarily constructed "civility" rules. Don't give him the satisfaction. jps (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Rock on people. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 17:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

You people are right, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Bullshit detector custom award For... seeing through it. —PaleoNeonate – 13:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Hob Gadling. Thank you. MarshallKe (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The AE complaint noticed above is beyond frivolous.

Generalrelative (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

So, considering that your comment supposedly was not a personal attack, I take it you do not think I am here to push fringe viewpoints? MarshallKe (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Is there a WP:STICKPOKING guideline? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 21:09, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

You should write one. MarshallKe (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

All I'm asking is that if Hob intended to suggest that I am here to push fringe viewpoints, I ask that he apologize for his personal attack, and if he did not intend to suggest that, he can make it clear that that was not his intention. MarshallKe (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

It would be pointless for me to speculate on your reasons of being here. I'll just say that you have had difficulties in the past telling fringe positions from valid ones. This is normal, because one cannot know all fields intimately enough to judge those things, and usually not a problem. But you have insisted on your opinion too long, pushing positions you did not recognize as fringe even after getting explained why they were, getting on several people's nerves. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	I really appreciate your list of pseudoscience pages! And the great work you've been doing around addressing the topic of climate change denial on various pages Likeanechointheforest (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoastronomers 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. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

hey not sure if this is the appropriate place to reach you, i edited a page for the first time yesterday evening and i see it has now been reverted due to copyright violation,having read the copyright policy and directions im at abit of a loss as to how ive run afoul of either but as im a freshly minted editor im sure there is something ive likely overlooked.If you could take a moment to explain what my mistake was id be eternally indebted.Again apologies if this is the wrong place or way to have this addressed ( feel free to educate me on that also) and to finish out i hope your having a lovely day or night :) 2001:8003:2051:1300:41EC:21F8:7EC7:22C2 (talk) 11:06, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I moved that question to a new section.

It's quite simple: do not copy text from other websites to this one. Otherwise it is a copyright violation. I copied a sentence from your text and googled it. It came from another page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

thanks for getting back to me, so i should rewrite the content i wish to add in my own words and then provide the citation to the source im summarising or referencing?

appreciate your feedback its a little late here now but i might have another go editing tomorrow evening, wishing you well 2001:8003:2051:1300:41EC:21F8:7EC7:22C2 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stanford Shaw page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hob Gadling, there's been increased SOCK and MEAT activity over at the Michael Shellenberger page. Given your editing work there over the last year or two, your input would be valuable if you've got the time.--Hobomok (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

DeSmog Doug Weller talk 15:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

is used as a reliable source in several articles. It is similar to Science-Based Medicine. I did not say it was not a blog. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, misread, that was Slate. Doug Weller talk 16:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I thought happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Olavo de Carvalho, you may be blocked from editing. 2601:547:500:6940:ECBC:F1DA:4D20:95F8 (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Really? Talkpages are for discussing improvements to the article; they're not forums for your rants. IP range blocked for a week. Bishonen | tålk 22:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC).

Hello, there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. LightProof1995 (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up mental projection, which is a redundant/false theory--dchmelik (t|c) 07:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Like everything connected to theosophy and anthroposophy. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

please enjoy this kitten!

--Animalparty! (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You need to re-do your research! Getting in a hot-air balloon is the best way! Bishonen | tålk 08:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC).

Yes, I liked that one too... but maybe this is an instance of Poe's law. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

You might like to check the diff you added at the RfA an hour ago. What I clicked showed a comment by a different user. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I moved this to a different section.

I wanted to show not only the bad logic itself but the non-event of retracting it afterwards. I gave a quote of mine that was a reaction to the bad logic to make it easier to find. But I guess that is not how this sort of thing is done... --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This note is not an explanation of the phenomenon, but a description of attempts to explain it. If people are taking these actions, I think we should simply report on them. Szacholub (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You think wrong. Please check the rules of Wikipedia, especially WP:WAR, WP:BRD, WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, right. You are also in the wrong place. You should go to Talk:Levitation (paranormal) because this is not a matter between you and me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I know we don't really get along that well, and have disagreed on content, but I wanted to let you know that I appreciate that you do a great job of avoiding edit wars. At Padre Pio, despite obviously disagreeing with many of the edits being made you've made a single revert, discussed on the talk page, and brought it up at a noticeboard. That is about the best editor behavior we can hope for. Thanks for that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, but edit-warring always seemed pointless to me and there is nothing special about avoiding it. Reverting an IP edit three times, yes. But more than that... why? --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

What do you think should be done about the entry for Dunning-Kruger? I don't know what can be done about the demand for "evidence." To my mind the evidence is the notion itself, and the people who have erased my entries do not accept my reasoning, e.g. that "level of competence" is self-evidently an invention because people are competent at some things while being incompetent at others.

There may be people out there who wonder whether the whole thing is a joke or not. The veddy veddy serious people controlling the entry at present, i.e. winning their self-declared Wiki-war, may convince people on the margins that it's genuine social science, thus adding to the numbers of acolytes of this sad cult.

Surely there should be, at minimum, some tip of the hat to the fact that many people see Dunning-Kruger as a joke.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the above applies equally to the The Peter Principle problem. In that case things are made easier by the fact that the wider press got hold of it and understood the joke before Wikipedia came along all poe-faced and ecclesiastical to render it Holy Writ of the sociology gods.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not know why this is on my Talk page. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I presume you have seen my ping. New posting on EWN: wp:EWN#User:Smefs reported by User:Adakiko (Result: ) Cheers Adakiko (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but I saw this message first. Am I supposed to do anything now? If not, I don't know why I get alerts and notices all over the place. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to do anything. My apology for the excessive notifications. If you have time, a quick check of my hack-job of an EWN posting would be appreciated! Cheers Adakiko (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

NP. Looks good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

You restored a forum style post. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Was your restoration of a trolls edit a mistake? O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was reverting the addition, not the removal. Don't know how this happened. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Happens O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

MOUNTAIN of excellent scientific data and evidence demonstrating the existence of the species. Your glaring ignorance of that ("crap" for evidence) IS YOUR OWN. If you'd care to have your glaring ignorance exposed and be exposed to the SCIENTIFIC REALITY of the existence of a highly elusive ice age Great Ape currently inhabiting North America, feel free to drop me a line. Curious to find out what you label as "pseudoscince". I hope youre referring to the absurdly ridiculous concept that CO2 drives climat change. Dr. Mike Johnson 200.88.175.94 (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, another excellent example of what I wrote here: [4] "You do not know enough to judge this" is a common pro-pseudoscience talking point, also used by astrologers and homeopaths. I would add Bigfooties to the list in the future, but you are only one data point.

I do not know how you got here or why you are talking about Bigfoot and climate change, because you failed to give a link to it.

And no, I will not try to educate you in private. I deleted your address because publishing it on the internet is always a bad idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Musk. Though all relevant pages are probably semi-ed. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess this is about something that happened in that thread but is now way down. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, got it. "prosecute Fauci", at the top. (Twitter was never my medium.) That Eon Musp guy seems to be have quite a fanboi following. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There are h8ers too though. -Roxy the dog 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Not for long. He is an absolutist after all, freeze-peach and otherwise. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 13:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have seen it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, we collaborated well the other day on the Miracle of Lanciano article. It was about massive influence and distortion of content by religious POV. I would like to bring to your attention a slanted discussion: I reported a religious user and the editors see it as a violation of Wikipedia rules on my page. Maybe you can participate in the relevant discussion. Greetings

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Rafaelosornio_reverting_permanently_my_secular_editing_of_the_article_on_Padre_Pio

Mr. bobby (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks for editing the EMDR article. It is currently really stuck;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#EMDR

if you do have the energy to do more editing of this article, just wanted to encourage you to do so! JCJC777 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I know about all that. FTN? I live there. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hob. When adding signatures to unsigned talk page comments, could you please make sure that you're using the correct timezone? For example here you added the timestamp "20:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)" while the comment was actually added at 19:37 (UTC). Thanks. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Also please don't forget to WP:SUBST the templates. Thanks. 93.72.49.123 (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the time zone is really important when adding a sig for a four-year-old contribution.

I have no idea how to add a timezone to the unsigned template, or why I should. Do I have to check the IP address to find out where the user came from? Sounds like unnecessary work.

Also, AnomieBot will subst it automatically. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Why add the signature at all, then? Nevermind that it leads to nonsense like this, where Slatersteven's reply to an anonymous comment apparently was written earlier than that comment.

Since Wikipedia stores all signatures in UTC, you'd only need to subtract/add your timezone's UTC offset (e.g. if you live in a city with a UTC+01:00 offset, you'd need to subtract one hour from your 20:37 signature). 93.72.49.123 (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Why add the signature at all Because the automatic archive bot will ignore undated contributions. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. A couple of diffs were drawn to my attention recently: [5] and [6]. Look, I know what you're getting at in both instances, and I'm not trying to get in the way of anyone keeping dubious content out of our articles, but in the interests of complying with the WP:BLP policy, please avoid the use of colourful language like that to describe living people. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 12:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

OK, I will try. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I didn’t revert this or other edits. There are three or so related articles where I made some similar edits, all of them before I was reverted; I think you’re just seeing a similar edit to a second article I made at the same time.

In any event, BRD is optional, so nothing wrong with my reverting if I did want to. JustinReilly (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not know why this is on my user page instead of the article Talk page. It seems to suggest that you think I am the problem. I am not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hob, I am a bit confused on why i have received a "stop editing warning". I have reviewed Wikipedia's editing policies and don't believe any of my edits were made incorrectly or with bad intent. This organization is not an "anti-immigration organization" and it seems misleading to readers to represent them as such. On their website fairus.org they clearly state that they are a non profit advocacy group who advocate for US immigration system reform, meaning that they support legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. I am hoping we can reach some kind of agreement on this because all i would like is for the local description on the basic information page to be changed from "Anti-Immigration Organization" to either "Non-profit" or 'Advocacy Organization" since they are technically not anti-immigration. Thanks- Fred Fred12344 (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I said "See WP:BRD". What is confusing about that? You made a bold edit (B), you were reverted (R), then you are supposed to discuss (D). Not here, but on the article talk page. Instead, you tried muscling your edit back in, which is called edit-warring (not edit warning). See WP:WAR. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright I will repost this in the article talk page thanks for the clarification- Fred Fred12344 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I have created a new essay and would welcome some critique on the talk page there:

• User:Valjean/Wikipedia's credibility

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, can you have a view in Weather in 2023? I think someone is pushing fringe views on climate science there (by citing a mere tweet of Ryan Maue, a known climate downplayer). However he argues, because Maue shortly was appointed by the Trump administration, he is a important and eminent scientists. I have argued against that notion here. Greetings, Andol (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I know that user... --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You should know that my watchlist has over 7,300 pages, so I see a lot, including this discussion. Nonetheless, I don’t necessarily like words being put into my mouth. In short, I’m not necessarily saying we should cite Maue. As I said three times, just start a thing at WP:RSN to get a formal, community consensus on whether Maue is reliable or not. Instead, you came here looking for someone to join the discussion. As I stated in my P.S. comment, I would most likely support a deprecation vote for Maue, excluding the two AMS publications he did. Well, I’m back to watching my watchlist. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I explained this on Talk:Weather of 2023. You do not deprecate people, you deprecate websites and papers. There is no need for further confirmation on RSN; the rules are clear. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I've reverted an edit you made several months ago adding "innumeracy" to the See also section.

While the sheer audacity and creativity of what you did happens to tickle my twisted sense of humor (I'm having trouble not giggling for long enough to type this out)…

Do you mind explaining why that wasn't WP:SNEAKY vandalism, or at the very least, a wanton POV violation?

I'm almost tempted to award you a barnstar for the creative finesse of it. Perhaps you could dream up something more constructive next time?

I'm sorry for sounding like a high school dean, but you were kind of asking for it.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 10:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"See also" is just an incentive for someone to find sources that connect the two subjects. I thought it possible that such sources exist, but it seems nobody found one. It is no problem for me that you deleted the entry.

almost unlimited room for growth doe not make sense. Something is either limited or not. There is no "almost". So, innumeracy.

the world can provide a practically limitless abundance of natural resources What does "practically" mean? Exponential growth will run into a limit. Innumeracy.

Cornucopians might counter that human population growth has slowed dramatically This misses the point. The point is that exponential growth is not sustainable and will stop or slow down at some point. Denying that is innumerate, and arguing about when it will happen is actually an admission that one was wrong to deny it.

Years ago, I actually had a discussion with someone on German Wikipedia who really seemed to think that infinite growth was possible. He was also a climate change denier, and innumerate, and dishonest. He faked sources in Wikipedia articles.

I have no idea what high school deans sound like; I only know fictional ones. I don't care for your opinion though, and I do not need it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Fakakte. It is now committed to memory, ready for use at the appropriate moment. Thank you, Knitsey (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hob Gadling, I think in your latest answer on the Irreducible complexity talk page here, you meant to say "I don't understand this" :-) --McSly (talk) 17:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Whoops! Thank you, I corrected it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ1lWHO 69.113.233.201 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

no. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Dear Hob Gadling, Not sure how to best contact you, hope this is ok. You wrote: "Virologists are not scientists! News at 11!"This is typical anti-science rhetorics. We know it from climate change deniers, from quacks and from anti-GMO activists. Ignoring all the experts by claiming general "conflicts of interest" of the whole scientific field, and listening to clueless ignoramuses instead (who can be ascribed a "conflicts of interest" with as much, if not more justification) does not hold water. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2023 (UTC) You pulled my quote out of context, added misleading interpretations, and insulted me (a scientist) as a quack. I was not saying that virologists are not scientists, but that the claim "all scientists agree" is misleading as pretty much only virologists are quoted. If you ask 100 catholic priests if the catholic church has a systemic problem with how child abuse cases are handled, posting the answer as "90% of academics agree that the catholic church has no problem with how child abuse cases are handled" is misleading, even if all priests are academics. The best, but certainly not good source regarding the opinion of scientists in general that I know is a poll by Prof. Justin Kinney on twitter, in which 90% of scientists declared to not be convinced SARS-CoV-2 came from a lab. Please remove or correct your insulting comment. Thanks, Dr. Valentin Bruttel Vbruttel (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

insulted me (a scientist) as a quack That is untrue. I said you used typical anti-science rhetorics and named three examples. If you cannot even parse that correctly, I guess it is pointless to talk to you. I will try anyway.

I was not saying that virologists are not scientists That is untrue. You wrote Almost all of your sources quote virologists, not scientists. If you did not want to be understood as saying virologists are not scientists, you failed.

all scientists agree is an irrelevant red herring and also typical anti-science rhetorics. Climate change deniers do the same thing by ignoring the relevant experts and instead demanding a consensus among people who are experts on other things. That is stupid. If you are indeed a scientist, try this: Ask scientists from other fields to vote on some fact from your field. They will have no idea what is true or false in your field. They are simply laypeople as far as your field is concerned.

Please remove or correct your insulting comment. Your reasoning was bad, and I pointed out it was bad. Scientists should be able to tell the difference between themselves and their reasoning, and they should be able to tell the difference between attacks on their reasoning and attacks on themselves. Wikipedia admins can do that too. If you cannot master that simple task, that is your problem, not mine.

I think we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I am writing to you in a good faith attempt to resolve a dispute regarding your lack of civility in violation of the wikipedia's policy. Your reversion makes condescending and offensive remarks such as:

"woo-woo bullshit,"

and name-calling, by calling me "rookie."

You also referred to my edit as "vandalism." The edit is appropriate and there is no citation for the "in line with his fundamentalist Christian beliefs."

Indeed, your edits to James Tour have no citations at all and you are consistently personal attacks to editors on the talk page, telling them that they are "not competent,"

Finally, your edits to James Tour's page consistently violate the biography of a living person rules and reflect your own opinions and personal animus to him to the point of slander. You've included language regarding his "fundamentalist" (no definition and labeling him) Christian beliefs regarding a debate in which he makes painstaking efforts to stick to the chemistry and doesn't cite religion at all. Your posts reflect superiority and incivility. Below are some examples of violations of the neutral point of view and editing the page to reflect your own personal views.

"Tour's anti-science shenanigans"

"Creationism is unscientific crap, and if someone embraces it and we have reliable secondary sources hitting them for it, let's add it to his article by any means. I think Tour's religious ideas and his connection to the DI are a big minus; I would take anything he writes with a grain of salt; I would not like it if I had to work with him (which is very unlikely), but what I think does not matter here." PerseusMeredith (talk) 11:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

by calling me "rookie." I have been here about fifteen times as long as you, with about 200 times your contributions, and you were unfamiliar with WP:BRD. It's not name-calling, it is a fact.

telling them that they are "not competent," Also fact. Creationism is anti-science, and the Disco Tute is anti-science. Every competent editor familiar with those things knows that.

personal animus to him I do not even know that guy. I am not interested in him. I am only interested in Wikipedia articles not containing anti-science propaganda, such as your edit.

slander Read WP:NLT before heading further in that direction.

anti-science shenanigans Signing anything from the Disco Tute qualifies.

Creationism is unscientific crap Where is the problem here?

what I think does not matter here Well, it doesn't. You are personalizing the fact that I call a spade a spade. I just repeat the scientific position. This does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Hob! Think we met before at Institute of Economic Affairs. I can respond to your message about Engdahl but it's better to do so more completely by email. Would you mind temporarily turning on "email me" (or I can do so if you prefer). Cambial — foliar❧ 15:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

No. That is not how this works. I will just have to file this under "dunno". --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

What? Cambial — foliar❧ 16:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I was resigning myself to not knowing the answer. But then I noticed that you already gave an answer on the Talk page where it belongs, so I don't know what you are trying to do on this page. And I do not want to know. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill#Rfc - Kate Shemirani radio show appearance of relevance to a page you have edited on (Kate Shemirani). Structuralists (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, does this article meet FA criteria? If so, can you nominate it? Parham wiki (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. I had to look up what WP:FA means. Not my field. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting my page from these periodic attacks from the Heartland Institute. This event occurred 12 years ago and they're still trying to sabotage/rewrite the history around it. Peter Gleick PGleick (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, it is just part of the usual fight against disinformation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I thought about moving that to a /archive page, but in the end nothing in it seemed worth saving. Even the one comment that started off trying to address the content and what to do with it wandered into trolling/baiting language, so better just nuked.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I deleted it because it looked like a time sink and aggression source to me. I did not see any non-forum parts at first glance; if there were any, they can come back in a more constructive shape. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding your !vote under Talk:2023_Israel–Hamas_war RfC, I recommend you rewrite it, as it reads like a personal reflection and as such would likely work more against your position than for it. The focus should be on our core policies. Marokwitz (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Every !vote from the trust-what-the-murderers-say-because-they-are-oppressed camp reads like a personal reflection, so I don't think mine is that bad. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Marokwitz (sorry, I keep writing Markowitz by accident) is right. You should strike your !vote and write one that Marokwitz would write - channel your inner Marokwitz. Not because your original !vote is wrong. It's your truth, and I hear where you're coming from, but I know you're too smart not to realize why you could write a better one that would make the same point, but even better. Andre🚐 08:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks. Don't forget to replace it with a pithy and on-topic statement. And I actually came here to thank you for having my back. I don't think a barnstar is really appropriate under the circumstances, more like just a heartfelt thanks. Andre🚐 08:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I do not like it when people come here to tell me what to do. I tried to transport that with my edit summary "people keep bothering me about this on my Talk page, so I am striking it to have peace" but it seems I failed.

  write one that Marokwitz would write That is a crazy idea. I am not a meatpuppet. Writing something that has been written before would be pointless, given that it is not a vote, and if I could think of a good reason that has not been written before, I would write it. --Hob Gadling (talk)

  OK, nevermind, forget it. I do not like it when people tell me what to do, either. Consider it unsolicited and advice that I understand was overstepping, so forget I said that. What I meant was not to be a meatpuppet but to adopt a diplomatic and conciliatory tone and say something you still equally believe. Sorry, that came out wrong. I'll strike it if you like. Thanks again for your other comment. Andre🚐 08:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I very rarely tell people to strike stuff. Sorry if I am coming across as too aggressive to people who mean well. It's your truth probably triggered my anti-postmodernism reflex.

  And misuse of "ad hominem" is one of my pet peeves, so no need to thank me (three times, including the thank you button).

  PS. Do you have a brain implant directly connected to your Wikipedia watchlist, which transforms your thoughts on new edits into written text? Your response speed is relativistic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  accident with a contraceptive and a time machine. Andre🚐 08:44, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  [edit conflict] Argh, you already struck it. I am just too slow. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've held the fastest talk page reply title for many years. I think there should be a contest. We could have Nathan's Hot Dogs. Andre🚐 08:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

  Was gonna add something, but given the above, I decided not to. Uh-oh, too late! Mathglot (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have undone your reverts of my edits. I have done this because in my opinion, you have not successfully disproven my arguments. You are correct when you state that warranted doubt is not denial, but the fact that, on the Climate change denial page, it is immediately preceded by the description that it is pseudoscientific makes "unwarranted" an unnecessary, extraneous adjective. As for List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, the fact that the title of the page directly, explicitly refers to the topic therein as pseudoscientific also renders "unwarranted" an unnecessary description (especially since the other two other forms of denialism featured in the article, Germ theory denialism and Holocaust denial, do not feature the adjective "unwarranted" to describe the doubt that they are born out of, since in both cases it's obvious, given the language that surrounds it on here, that it is unwarranted.

I don't want to discount the fact that you're editing in good faith, but this seems like an unnecessary description, considering the other language that surrounds it in the case of both articles that proves the doubt is unwarranted. Should you revert again, I will stop reverting and discuss, per WP:BRD, but I just wanted to bring this here to inform you. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

You are in the wrong place. That is what article Talk pages are for. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Also, reasoning is done by reasoning, not by reverting reverts. If you know WP:BRD, you should know that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Hob here. I reverted to the original per wp:NOCONSENSUS: "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." - DVdm (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'll concede that you are both correct, I should not have reverted to my preferred version. Hence why I have self-reverted, and will be taking this to Talk:Climate change denial instead (not the other page, due to User:DVdm's rationale). Hob, you are correct, I should have reasoned on the talk page instead. I will be doing just that after I save this edit. I invite you both to comment there. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello! I saw you in the edit history at Watchmaker analogy, and finally got them onto the talk page instead of reverting the article to their preferred version. Would it be correct to direct the editor you've reverted towards Q2 of the FAQ over at Talk:Intelligent design? Just want to be sure I'm not misdirecting them, as it's my first foray into WP:FRINGE. Thanks! Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 07:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the FAQ of another page is relevant to that page. Also, that seems to be a matter for the Talk page of the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Per the notice near the top of that page, "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough." I am sending you this message/notice on your Talk page. Cmsmith93 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Weird. --Hob Gadling (talk)

Hello, Hob Gadling. I am here to apoligise. i'd not be supprised if you had no clue who i am. but i am here to say sorry for referring to you as 'hobgoblin'. that is all my fault, sorry if it was insensitive. Babysharkboss2!! (Hells Bells (Talk Page btw)) 14:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

That was not necessary. I can bear it. But thanks anyway. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Please don't call this the "the stupidest quackery of all". You're just tempting fate for someone to conjure up an even stupider one. DMacks (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Um... are you on the right Talk page? I have neither expertise nor a lot of interest in the subject. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I, apparently mistakenly, thought it might interest you. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)