User talk:Bob Gollum: Difference between revisions

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks’ noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

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

Hello, please note that you should not be editing anything related to the Arab-Israeli conflict as you did here: [1] Rainsage (talk) 02:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

hello please stop participating in conversations covered by PIA. [2] Rainsage (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, please carefully read WP:ECR, which is a restriction that applies to all content related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. You may 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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]