![]() | 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. |
I wasn't kidding. Diff it, strike it, or explain it at AE. Levivich dubious – discuss 17:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
So what do you think PackMechEng's "cereal" comment refers to, then? jps ( talk) 18:54, 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)
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)
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)
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)
You delete my article from Wikipedia I will never forget & forgive you...🤬
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)
Nuff said. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
>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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
And some concerning examples:
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)
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. 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)
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)
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)
Yes 138.43.60.24 ( talk) 14:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
Vicennalia |
Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton ( talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please stop reverting my changes and discuss at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink.
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
22:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
Please strikethrough this comment of yours, or change the wording. This appears to be a WP:civil issue. Thanks
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)
mainstream scientists grew more receptiveclaim 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)
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)
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)
Please take a moment to refresh yourself with WP:NPA re this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ayurveda&oldid=1033842969 wherein you called me an "aggressive, pushy loudmouth". Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You're obviously discussing a pretty sensitive and heated topic over at Talk:Chiropractic. However, that is no excuse for:
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)
|
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
As I saw the FTN section get archived I checked and did a few minor changes. Feel free to re-audit, thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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 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)
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)
What method do you like to use to judge the reception of a recent study? MarshallKe ( talk) 22:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
I wasn't kidding. Diff it, strike it, or explain it at AE. Levivich dubious – discuss 17:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
So what do you think PackMechEng's "cereal" comment refers to, then? jps ( talk) 18:54, 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)
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)
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)
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)
You delete my article from Wikipedia I will never forget & forgive you...🤬
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)
Nuff said. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 16:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
>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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
And some concerning examples:
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)
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. 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)
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)
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)
Yes 138.43.60.24 ( talk) 14:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
Vicennalia |
Thanks for all your work for the encyclopaedia; it's twenty years old today! GPinkerton ( talk) 19:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please stop reverting my changes and discuss at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant) -- Doctorx0079 ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement § Shibbolethink.
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
22:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
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)
Please strikethrough this comment of yours, or change the wording. This appears to be a WP:civil issue. Thanks
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)
mainstream scientists grew more receptiveclaim 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)
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)
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)
Please take a moment to refresh yourself with WP:NPA re this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Ayurveda&oldid=1033842969 wherein you called me an "aggressive, pushy loudmouth". Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
You're obviously discussing a pretty sensitive and heated topic over at Talk:Chiropractic. However, that is no excuse for:
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)
|
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
As I saw the FTN section get archived I checked and did a few minor changes. Feel free to re-audit, thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 14:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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 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)
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)
What method do you like to use to judge the reception of a recent study? MarshallKe ( talk) 22:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)