User talk:Bob Gollum

I noticed that you reverted my edits on several lists of people, including List of comics creators appearing in comics. The entries that you re-added do not belong on this list. Wikipedia has a guideline called WP:LISTPEOPLE which says that every entry on a list of people must either have its own article or it must have multiple independent and reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. You incorrectly labeled my edits as vandalism when I was simply trying to remove entries that don't belong. Furthermore, I am concerned because it appears you have been following my edits to other lists of people (like List of Chinese Indonesians) and reverting my changes there too. Systematically following a particular user's edits and reverting them without a clear and justifiable reason based in policy can be perceived as WP:WIKIHOUNDING, which is a serious harassment violation. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It does appear that you are vandalizing multiple articles, and it seemed appropriate to correct that, and I added references or links to address the concern that prompted your deletions. But you are misstating the WP:LISTPEOPLE guideline, which only says that the existence of a wikipedia article or reliable secondary sources (not necessarily multiple) creates a presumption of notability. And you deleted significant people from the list who meet even the criteria you apply, which are more stringent than Wikipedia's criteria. I have written more about this on the article's talk page. Bob Gollum (talk) 01:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing WP:Vandalism, because it is clear from your usage of the term that you don't understand what it is. Vandalism does not include any good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, and I am certainly trying to improve Wikipedia. Sometimes improvement involves cutting out chaff. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Stop edit warring at Kevin MacDonald (evolutionary psychologist) and stop making logged-out edits. You behavior is disruptive. Discuss on the article's talk page, if necessary. Grayfell (talk) 06:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the objection; the edits are innocuous, and the latest edit was to revise it to match your own wording. 104.195.202.130 (talk) 10:11, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If you don't understand the objection, stop edit warring and work to resolve the problem on the article's talk page. Grayfell (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Rainsage (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, please note that you should not be editing anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict as you did here: Rainsage (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. The edit is only tangentially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and maintains a neutral point of view. What is your objection? Bob Gollum (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The Israeli hostages and their families are not tangentially related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Articles about Messing's opposition to Mamdani typically mention that it's because of his criticism of Israel, so I would argue that it's related. But we would have to ask an admin to be sure. Rainsage (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I agree, although when we are getting into how people react to Messing's posts on social media, we are getting a couple of steps removed from the hostages, and from the conflict, or conflicts, themselves.

I still don't understand, and you haven't mentioned, why you think I should not have done the edit though, or why you think I should not be editing on the topics. Bob Gollum (talk) 02:42, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

it's the rules on wikipedia that you can't edit about the arab-israeli conflict, broadly construed, until you have done 500 edits and been on the site for 30 days. Rainsage (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I don't think the edit violates that rule, though. It is about Debra and Zohran, and makes no claims one way or the other about any of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. Bob Gollum (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

The part about the hostages definitely violates the rule. The zohran part is debatable. If you don’t believe me, ask an admin. Rainsage (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

hello please stop participating in conversations covered by PIA. Rainsage (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

Even if the PIA restrictions do apply to an article about an American actress, they do not apply to the Talk page of the article. With protected articles, people who cannot edit the article directly are encouraged to submit suggested edits to the talk page. Bob Gollum (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, please carefully read WP:ECR, which is a restriction that applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may not make any edits related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except to make formal edit requests. That includes a prohibition on general talk page conversation. You may continue to discuss Debra Messing if you so wish, but not any aspect of her activity that is related to PIA. I am leaving you this reminder in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator. Best, Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: This looks like a test of the comment directly above. --Hipal (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal: ECR applies to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not to antisemitism more broadly. I cannot see anything in the linked comments that touches on ARBPIA. Furthermore, Bob Gollum has now engaged in a content disagreement on an article I wrote, and consequently I can no longer take administrative action here. You may wish to go to WP:AE, possibly to AE#Quick enforcement requests, instead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I can agree with that, though the topics are tightly linked.

Wikistalking seems to be a problem here . --Hipal (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I am the one feeling stalked. Hipal has left numerous messages for me, ranging from at condescending to offensive, and has engaged in edit warring on more than one occasion.

With respect to Gaza conflict, I have refrained from editing anything related to the subject since Vanamonde's earlier comment. Bob Gollum (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for my revert. I see what you were doing, but after reviewing the old discussions, I think it's best to leave it out entirely. Good catch with the misuse of "ideology". --Hipal (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it cited a Wikipedia article as a source. This should be avoided. You are free to use the sources cited in that article if they are reliable. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't cite wikipedia as a source. I linked the name of Padma Hejmadi to her wikipedia page, but none of the cites are from wikipedia. Can you clarify? Bob Gollum (talk) 05:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, on a second look (just after I reverted) it seems you put the wrong link for the bookrags source. The link you give instead leads people to edit the Peter S. Beagle article. IMBD usually isn't considered a reliable source either. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I get it - the automatic citation generating feature created a link to the wiki page instead of to the Bookrags page, and I did not catch it. I will find a better source than imdb and then fix both. Bob Gollum (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

This is getting silly. First of all, I did not insert the sentence into the article. Another editor did that. Check the history of revisions.

Second of all the information is not defamatory. The subject has gone on national tv to talk about it; it is not some accusation against her.

Third of all, it is not poorly sourced.It is sourced to the primary source and reliable secondary sources, including an interview with Anderson Cooper on CNN.

Please, read what is there before jumping to conclusions. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

You restored BLP content without consensus using unreliable sources. Yes, this appears "silly" given the requirements of BLP and WP:CT. --Hipal (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

There was consensus and has been for some time. Check the revision history.

Why do you consider Anderson Cooper interviewing Debra Messing unreliable? Bob Gollum (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Please read (and make sure you understand) WP:BLP. Biographies of living persons are held to a higher standard. We generally shun primary sources as you have used in this edit. Additionally, WP:RSP lists a number of commonly used sources that previous discussion has determined reliability or lack thereof. Several of the sources you have used in what @Hipal removed would be considered insufficient for a BLP. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not use the primary source in this edit. That was done by a previous editor. I understand the objection to some of the sources; but CNN is reliable and US is acceptable under WP:RSP. Shall I reinsert the text with only those edits? WP:RSP has a certain degree of flexibility; it has to be applied with common sense. Here the other sources are being used to address hipal's newly raised concern about notability, not for the truth of the statement, which is non-controversial and well supported by reliable sources.

The policy, by the way is not to shun primary sources; rather it is to use reliable secondary sources and not rely exclusively on a primary source. It is helpful to the reader in this case to have the primary source alongside the reliable secondary source. Bob Gollum (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

The content elements should be discussed at the already open discussion on the article's talk page so that it is noticable to all editors of the page. Re: Shall I reinsert the text with only those edits? I've answered that there, but will summarize here: no. WP:ONUS is on you to get consensus for inclusion. Keep in mind, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Also re: WP:RSP has a certain degree of flexibility; it has to be applied with common sense. Not when there is clear consensus on a specific source. The "common sense" required is to understand which sources are a definite "no go" and which ones require some further use of the brain. The two that have been pointed out in this discussion are "do not use" - there's no additional consideration necessary. Regarding use of primary sources, if secondary sources exist, there is no need to add a primary source. No, it is not useful to have primary and secondary sources together. That ends up with overcited ref-bloat and often is nothing more than a way to insert external links into the article that do not belong there. You'll find that the general consensus will be that if something is stated in a useable secondary source, leave it at that. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you wrote, but I think you misunderstand the use of primary sources. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources

Although not binding policy, this is a fairly clear indication that primary sources can be used to establish that the primary source says what it says. The reference to Allure can be used to establish that there is a photograph in Allure. Bob Gollum (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

== December 2025 ==

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. - Hipal (talk) 22:42, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

See above; repeating the message twice does not add any substance to it. Read the article, read the past revisions of it, and then come back. Bob Gollum (talk) 22:51, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Apologies for whatever caused the duplicate message. --Hipal (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Acroterion (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on the talk page. I had offered three very different approaches to the article, in response to other people's comments, and did not think of that as edit warring.

It was a very strange consensus - one based on original research, with no citation or reference to support it. Bob Gollum (talk) 13:17, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The definition per WP:EDITWAR: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. If you're reverting back and forth, that is what edit warring is, hence the notice above. It's good that you stopped and moved things to talk page discussion (see WP:BRD). Just to clarify things, the three revert rule is a "bright line" rule, but it's not the definition of edit warring. Instead, that's the line you cannot cross. But it's still edit warring (and blockable) with fewer than 3 reverts. Many people make the mistake of thinking 3RR is the definition and it's not. Hope that clarifies. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2025 (UTC)