User talk:Hob Gadling

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

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

Could not have put it better myself.

"Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything." - C. S. Lewis 69.118.244.151 (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's for gullible people only. Not believing in gods is not a problem. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you allow me, the claim can be put in context:

CS Lewis was a notable fiction writer but also a Christian apologist and a man of his time.
Psychological projection and slippery slope fallacy - the non-belief and requirement for evidence is dramatized with straw men. What was "anything" really meant to suggest? It's left open for the reader to imagine anything. An agnostic or atheist doesn't bother with the possible existence of Zeus if they were not presented with credible evidence of his existence. While a lack of critical thinking and superstition can lead to incredible beliefs and outcomes, the higher standard of necessitating evidence means that it's not just about belief, but knowledge acceptance, meaning that such a person is actually unlikely to uncritically "believe anything".

206.248.143.75 (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you.

but also a Christian apologist Yes. Lewis' fiction also makes his Christian apologism clear. I would avoid as much as possible to be in the same room as someone who views "everybody dies (and goes to heaven), except the one bad person! Neener neener neener!" as a happy end. Their real-life decisions must be misinformed by the delusion of life after death, just like Islamist fundamentalists who blow themselves up. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:28, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you..

.. for most excellent edit summary! Bishonen | tålk 19:22, 19 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Happy First Edit Anniversary Hob Gadling 🎉

Hey @Hob Gadling. Your wiki edit anniversary was 28 days ago, marking 21 years of dedicated contributions to this Wikimedia project. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

You can make your point without disparaging living people as you did here. WP:BLP applies everywhere, including article talk pages. You're already aware that BLP is a WP:CTOP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are interpreting BLP far too harshly, Hob makes an excellent point, and really doesn't need this sort of nonsense. Nevertheless, you have done a fine mopping job since your elevation to the janitorial role. - Walter Ego 15:16, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the part SFR deleted was too WP:FORUMy and did not really belong on the Talk page, so I have no objection. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project

Hi Hob. I don't know if this will interest you, but the abuse of .gov primary sourcing to push whitewashing, historical revisionism, and conspiracy theories into our health (CDC, vaccines, etc.) and political (Trump-Russia nexus) articles is a growing problem. This has inspired me to begin development of a WikiProject, and I'd like you to take a look and join if you feel it has some merit. I have little experience with such projects, so experienced eyes are necessary.

There is a clear difference between pre-MAGA and current .gov content, and older, more reliable, .gov pages are disappearing and being replaced with misinformation and disinformation. If editors do not learn to factor this into their thinking, then we've got a serious problem that will make Wikipedia a very unreliable source of information. We should not be laundering misinformation.

See the talk page at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Valjean/WikiProjectGSC

WikiProject U.S. Government Source Context is a WikiProject focused on improving how editors evaluate and contextualize United States government (.gov) sources. While such sources are often treated as presumptively reliable, the project emphasizes that their reliability can vary depending on political influence, authorship, institutional role, and purpose. Like other institutional sources, United States government sources are not inherently immune from the dissemination of misinformation or disinformation when content is shaped by political control or advocacy.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:59, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - something like this is indeed necessary. I will put the project on my watchlist, but I do not not think it is possible to have less experience with WikiProjects than me... --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]