Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

• 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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

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

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

  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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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