User talk:Hob Gadling

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Redfield

You are changing my edits to support a false narrative that is unsupported by any evidence. Stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.150.25 (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther

See their talk page. Doug Weller talk 16:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Jews and their Lies

Hello, recently I edited the page On the Jews and their Lies and you undid this edit.

On the talk page I provided context to Luther's statement and I explained the reason for my edit.

Would you mind having a look at it? AdrianEvex (talk) 18:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a watchlist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the article is on your watchlist and you will respond to my comment soon? AdrianEvex (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It means I checked it and found it uninteresting. Can we stop this? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I don't want to leave this behind, as I have not received any response to the arguments I gave in support of my edit. I would like to have a fruitful discussion to resolve the dispute. AdrianEvex (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bothering me here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

About that. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Clauser

why exclude the "overwhelming" from the revert of a WP:PROFRINGE edit?

Because it is generally good practice to eliminate useless words like adjectives and adverbs. Viriditas (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives and adverbs are a normal, enriching component of language. I do not agree with your peculiar linguistic tastes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives and adverbs aren’t normal and enriching in formal writing, they are expected in literary prose and poetry. Nor is it considered peculiar to remove them,[1] it’s recommended in almost every guide to composition. WP:WTW addresses some of this problem. Viriditas (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So, you should not say "aren’t normal and enriching in formal writing" and "expected in literary prose" but "aren’t normal and enriching in writing" and "expected in prose" because "formal" and "literary" are adjectives. No, even "normal", "enriching" and "expected" are adjectives, but I leave their removal from your sentences to you.

WTW mentions the word "adverb" when talking about adverbs that signify editorializing, and int mentions the word "adjective" when talking about adjectives with confusing meaning. The type of word is not relevant there.

You other link talks about writing in academia. Wikipedia is not academia. So, "citation needed".

But if you want to introduce rules banning certain forms of grammar, my user talk page is not the right place. I think that this is pretty boring, and I will not join your grammar crusade. That is not why I am on Wikipedia. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap: you went from calling my attempt to formalize writing "peculiar" to a "crusade", doubling down along the way, aggressive from the get-go in your revert, and then trying to argue against WTW by claiming that Wikipedia is not academia, which implies we do not use formal writing. You then conclude by implying that the only reason I am here to engage in grammar crusades. I just want to take a moment to reiterate that everything you've said is untrue, and you have a habit of engaging in these longform fantasies. This kind of thing you enjoy is better spent offline, perhaps in the pursuit of a hobby of fiction writing, which is where the use of emotive terms like "overwhelming" are best used, not here. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. I did not "argue against WTW", I argued against using WTW to justify things it does not say. "Wikipedia is not academia" does not imply "we do not use formal writing", and I never said it did. I have no idea why you are doing this, and I did not claim or "imply" to have any idea why you are doing this. So please stop the routine strawmanning. I am just saying that your reasoning was full of holes and therefore not convincing, and I still don't know why you are bothering me on my talk page talking about your... well, you did not like "crusade", so I will say "campaign" instead. If you do not like that either, replace it in your mind by another word of your choice.

I am on Wikipedia to fight the inclusion, in an online encyclopedia, of dubious ideas disguising themselves as science. Doing that offline seems a tad difficult to me, and talking about word categories seems to be a distraction from it. If you disagree with the cited sources which say that the consensus is overwhelming, then there is nothing you can do - reliable sources win. If you just do not like the word, or the type of word, then go to the article talk page and argue there to replace it by a verb or something, without losing meaning. The article talk page is the place to do this. But do not come to my user talk page to bore me with stuff I made clear several times that I deem irrelevant. Can we stop this here please? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here on your talk page because I'm answering the question you left in the edit summary of your revert. I find your "fight" dubious, overly aggressive and hostile in the extreme. While you were busy tilting at windmills and fighting imaginary enemies, I was the one who first brought the subject of John Clauser to the community, and spent the requisite time and energy actually battling the "dubious ideas disguising themselves as science" that you falsely claim to be doing. I'm also the same person who has been fighting climate deniers on Wikipedia since 2004 and in the real world since Hansen originally testified in 1988, so your bluster doesn't sit right with me at all. Finally, your claim that the sources use the word "overwhelming" is used without a quote or attribution, so if you're looking to fight dubious claims, look in the mirror first. The term "overwhelming" is used by WaPo reporter Maxine Joselow in her article, and you're using it without attribution or quotes. The reality that you seem to love to ignore is that the term "overwhelming" is an emotive, popular term that is used as a replacement for the objective term "majority". Of course, if you had any interest in accuracy you would know these things. No need to respond, I'm tired of dealing with fakes. Save me the time and energy of having to rebut your nonsense again. Viriditas (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]