User talk:Hob Gadling/Archive 2

December 2018
I was going to template warn you for a WP:NPA violation, but considering you've been here since 2004, you should know better than to use abusive edit summaries. I would suggest you don't do that again. Have a nice day. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look abusive to me. It looks like a basic truth about human nature that we can all learn from. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Crackpot" is a derogatory word, and it comes across as if you are calling a fellow editor a crackpot. Calling other editors names is uncivil. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 22:24, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not call the IP a crackpot. It was worded in a general way, so the IP could ask itself: "what if what I said is not a fact but only my subjective impression, coloured by my own opinion?" (I do not really expect it to work in that way; the message is more for undecided onlookers.)
 * "Coming across as if"? So what? You yourself are "coming across as if" wanting to start a fight over nothing with me, "as if" desperately needing a win over whatever to boost you ego - because the only win you can get in a discussion against the reality-based community is over quibbles. That's how I perceive it, but does not mean that is really your motivation. Therefore I am not accusing you of that.
 * So, stuff it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * PCHS-NJROTC, Hob Gadling removed something that was completely untrue ("RationalWiki has a strong leftist and secular bias, and some editors personally insult Christians and Conservatives.") and gave a clear explanation as to why it might seem to be true ("Delete unsourced opinion. Being anti-crackpot will seem left-wing to right-wing crackpots and right-wing to left-wing crackpots."). I suggest that you read WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure what dead horse you propose that I am beating when all I did was leave basically a level one warning about behavior that, at best, is a WP:BLP issue (referring to people that Rational-Wiki is against as "crack pots" is inappropriate on Wikipedia), and at worst a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:BITE. I mean, if you desire an administrative opinion on this use of abusive edit summaries, we can go there, but personally I'd rather just leave it at an agreement that it's best to just not use this kind of language to describe living people or other editors on Wikipedia, regardless of who it is and not fight over it. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 18:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Referring to people that Rational-Wiki is against as crack pots" exists only in your imagination. Hob never did what you warned him not to do. Either file a case at WP:ANI or drop it, but continuing to claim that something happened after two people have informed you that you imagined it is a waste of effort. Please don't reply. Just drop the stick..
 * Hob, if he persists I advise deleting his comments from your talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * +1. See also WP:IDHT.
 * RationalWiki is clearly anti-crackpot. Your deduction "people that Rational-Wiki is against are crackpots" constitutes the formal fallacy Affirming the consequent:
 * If Jackson is a crackpot (A), then RationalWiki is against Jackson. (B)
 * RationalWiki is against Jackson. (B)
 * Therefore, Jackson is a crackpot. (A)
 * Maybe you should read more RationalWiki and find out how to be more rational and how to better avoid bad logic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

New merge RfC on List of Cryptids
Since you participated in the rfc earlier in the year, I am letting you know of another rfc to merge List of cryptids. Which ever way the wind blows you are welcome to join in. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha!
Good spot. My caps lock is on hair trigger and I don't touch-type! Guy (Help!) 11:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I took a bit of foam rubber (the kind from ear protection plugs works well) and put it under the cap lock key so that I really have to press hard to actuate it. What would be great would be if PC keyboards acted like Selectric typewriters, and hitting the shift key released the cap lock. iNSTEAD WE HAVE this STUPIDITY. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * @User:JzG, @User:Guy Macon: I use a file containing this (under Windows):

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Keyboard Layout] "Scancode Map"=hex:00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,02,00,00,00,00,00,3a,00,00,00,00,00


 * Save that text as a .reg file and doubleclick on the file. The CapsLock key will do absolutely nothing after that. Gives you inner peace, that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


 * That's very useful! I was thinking of an underground nuke-proof shelter with two operators who each have to enter a presidential arming code and then turn two keys at the same time. Or maybe superglue inside the guts of the keyswitch. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Your recent reversion of sourced changes at Allopathic medicine
I notice you reverted my recent sourced changes to Allopathic medicine with the edit summary "No deletion of clear, sourced facts, no weasel terms. Go to Talk if you want the tenor of this article changed", which I find rather strange, since the changes were sourced, and fairly clear facts, in the interests of providing a more neutral point of view, and I was removing weasel terms rather than adding them. Before we take this further, could you confirm that you actually checked the statements against the sources cited before reverting, and if not, please revert yourself and take it to the talk page, specifying what you consider the problem with each item that you reverted? Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Peter Southwood, seriously? You seriously want t use a source that says :"..liberally employed as pejoratives by all irregular physicians of the 19th century" to support a claim like "The term is considered derogatory in North America"? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , Are you suggesting that it does not? I read the source, and as far as I could tell it referred exclusively to America, so yes I do consider it supports the claim that the term is considered derogatory in North America, in the absence of anything reliable claiming the contrary. I concede that it may not reliably refer to Canada or Mexico, so if you would prefer to restrict it further to the US, I would not object. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 06:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the 19th century is not the same as the 21st century and that "irregular physicians" are not the same as the general population, right? And you are aware that per WP:V all material in Wikipedia mainspace must be verifiable and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation that directly supports the material, right? The citation doesn't support the claim. If you wish to re-introduce it your unsourced claims, you are required to provide a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the claim. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes I am aware that the 19th Century is not the same as the 21st Century. It is fairly obvious based on the numbers, but I am not getting your point here.
 * "Irregular physicians" is not well defined, but I agree they would not be the general population, Again I do not see what point you are attempting to make.
 * Yes I am aware that when material has been challenged it is necessary to provide a citation to support the claim. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 15:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The citation says 19th century. Your claim implies present day. The citation must support the claim. You actually don't see a problem here? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When I said, "Go to Talk", I obviously meant "Go to the article's Talk page", not "go to my Talk page". This is not a matter between you and me, it is about the article. So this discussion belongs on Talk:Allopathic medicine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * When I said, "Go to Talk", I obviously meant "Go to the article's Talk page", not "go to my Talk page". This is not a matter between you and me, it is about the article. So this discussion belongs on Talk:Allopathic medicine. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Style matters are not sourced, but determined by our style guidelines
Regarding this: that's not how we do it, for very good reasons. We have our own style guide, otherwise our articles would veer radically and unpredictably in style, and we would not have an encyclopedia. Instead we'd have impenetrable legal and scientific articles written in the style of law reviews and academic journals, then articles on skating and rock music that read like they were written by people from Kerrang! and Thrasher magazines, and articles about fictional topics all written in an in-universe style and making sense to no one but die-hard fans. WP would basically be a random "collaborative blog" project that no one could make sense of or trust. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * My first thought: what.
 * My second thought: what does that have to do with what I wrote?
 * Took me a while to find out that you were talking just about the last sentence of the last paragraph of my contribution. It would have been better to put your response on the Talk page, as an indented response to what I wrote. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see. Discussion is closed, so you came here instead. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Screws and nuts
Speaking as a mechanical engineer, we don't generally use screws to attach the wheels to an automobile... unless you're some sort of lug nut. But to be fair, we don't use Sellotape either. Or whip out our "PE" status in response to fruit metaphors. VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Well, maybe that will show him that people should not talk about things they don't understand. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. VQuakr (talk) 05:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal attack
Please stop making personal attacks such as Even if it were allowed, you are bad at it and strike through those you have made. Thank you. Andrewa (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then I think we need to go to ANI. Watch this space. Andrewa (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks at talk:Patrick Moore. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Patrick Moore (environmentalist). Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion regarding Bruno Bettelheim article
Hello,

As a recent contributor to the article, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

Sorry I'm confused about my edit's revision
Can you please explain why my edit was revoked? I was just trying to add more substance to the wording, not change the meaning. I don't have any particular POV on this subject. DNocterum (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean this edit:.
 * That's easy: we have reliable sources saying it is pseudoscience. They are quoted in the article. Articles are supposed to be based on the sources quoted.
 * It is also immediately obvious to every physicist (like me) that it is pseudoscience - since it makes claims about quantum physics that are simply not true. Calling it "unconfirmed" would give it far more credit than it deserves. "Quantum healing" is simply big-word bullshit for impressing laymen, born from superficial copy-and-paste of impressive words from books written by amateurs also generated by copy-and-paste, without any real understanding what quantum physics is about, from what physicists wrote when they tried to dumb down the amateur philosophy the founders of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics unnecessarily added to the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. So, it is sort of a rumor, only less coherent and further away from reality. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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! Wikitam331 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the 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! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this thing sent regularly every ten hours? Looks like it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DRN thread
Hi there, I'm a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (and a long time veteran of dispute resolution on Wikipedia generally) and I'll be re-opening the discussion there on William Lane Craig. Can you please leave a comment at the noticeboard (I have put a section there for you to do so) to note that you are happy to participate in the discussion. I'll take things from there. Cheers. Steven  Crossin  16:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Climte psychosis
Your edit "Climate change denialists are not reliable sources that can be quoted as if they were experts".

I must agree. Its sensationalistic. Thank you for your edit. Much appreciated.

--Albert Falk (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions Alert
--Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


 * (Zero issues with your edits. I am just hitting everyone on the Jenny McCarthy page that hasn't received a pseudoscience and fringe science discretionary sanctions alert in the last year) --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Describing the qualifications of Stamets
Could you review and comment on this RfC, please? Many thanks. --Zefr (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Who? What? Why? I never heard of this guy. I know nothing about him. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is short enough to review with only a few sources. It's a pseudoscience issue, so I thought you might have an interest. No problems if you skip it. Already healthy discussion going on. --Zefr (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spiritualists from Northern Ireland


A tag has been placed on Category:Spiritualists from Northern Ireland requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz Read! Talk! 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert: pseudoscience and fringe science.
(Alerting all recent editors of our Multiple chemical sensitivity article.)

--Guy Macon (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Gnome
the article itself stated gnomes as sprites

أبو السعد 22 (talk) 11:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If I search "sprite" in the page, there are no hits. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, invite to join new RfC on Bruno Bettelheim
Hi, thanks for participating in last May's RfC (Request for Comment).

I wish to invite you to join a new one with the specific question of:


 * Should our lead sentence describe Bettelheim as a "self-proclaimed psychologist"?


 * RfC on lead sentence


 * started: Feb. 25, 2020

Any time and effort you wish to spend on this will be most appreciated. Thanks. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

An editor you replied to
You might not be interested and that's fine, but see about a minor politicians who's been involved in numerous controversies which are continually wiped from the lead, also an attempt to hide the fact that an accusation of pepperspraying a child is being edited to change it to person. No other accounts seem to edit his article. I've added sanctions to the article and alerts to the editor. I don't particularly want to edit the article as that would make me involved. I don't know if he has a coi but I can't figure out any other reason to be doing this given the editor's lack of interest in other politicians. Doug Weller talk 09:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh. I had already seen that page today, looking at what that user usually does. I thought that edit was alright since the deleted text is already further down in the article and may not belong in the lead. But I did put it on my watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is the lead in no way summarises the article - at least I think it violates WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV for that matter. Doug Weller  talk 14:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Undo of Walt Brown edits
Hi Hob,

The previous version of Walt Brown’s page details carefully why Brown is disliked or discredited. It spends several paragraphs doing so.

However, the theory for which he is noteworthy (really the only reason) is a somewhat vague summary that only sometimes accurately captures Brown’s core ideas and generally dismisses his key assumptions.

I believe that I provided a more detailed and accurate summary of the theory while maintaining the brevity of the previous author, particularly regarding Brown’s initial geologic assumptions.

Could you please tell me what I can do to ensure those core assumptions and details are included in the article?

Sincerely, Michael Williams MichaelLoweWilliams (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong place, because this is not a private issue between us two. Go to Talk:Walt Brown. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary
This edit summary is extremely inappropriate. You should not comment about someone's mentality.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought I should have dropped the last sentence when I clicked "Publish", but then it was too late. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I agree with you that the comment should be removed per WP:NOTSOAPBOX and WP:NOTFORUM.-- SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 05:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Another your edit summary
This edit summary is also inappropriate. You should not accuse and attack other editors or their motivations, as the summary does. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. Go away, anti-science POV warrior. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Alert
– bradv  🍁  20:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)