User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2025

Some odd behavior?

That user on the Talk:COVID-19 page has a bizarre editing history. Mostly dormant from 2014-2023, recently began picking up editing in spaces concerning the supposed "lab leak origin theory" of COVID. What do you think? I don't think COVID-19 is the right article for them to be discussing this issue, but that aside their combative attitude is not serving them any benefits as of now. Let me know what you think. I don't really want to haul this person to some noticeboard (mostly because I dislike bureaucracy) but push comes to shove I s'pose we ought to do something about it. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@X750: what happened is a congressional panel here in the United States released a statement that endorses the lab leak theory, based on... an op-ed. While ignoring actual research that says it's nonsense. So of course, the conspiracists latched onto it and are hitting our articles demanding we believe them. https://arstechnica.com/science/2024/12/congressional-republicans-conclude-sars-cov-2-originated-in-a-lab-leak/ — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you for the insight & explanation; it is hard as a foreigner (despite my residence within the U.S.) to process all that goes on within the American news sphere. So, a total nothingburger in the grand scheme of things. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 00:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Ruby Ridge

Hi, you stated that what I cited for Ruby Ridge is "not a reliable source". I disagree, the person Joe Rogan had on his show was an expert in that area. But even if you disregard that person (for political reasons because you don't like Joe Rogan?) the same facts are attested to by my other two sources, which are a law firm and PBS, which is a liberal news source! Can you please explain why these are not reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:6430:AFF4:3D53:B741 (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

First off, new sections go at the bottom.

Second, accusing me of reverting for "political reasons" is unfounded and can be considered a personal attack.

Third, you have been edit warring to insert these comments, which is not allowed. Take it to the article's Talk page.

Finally, the sources: I'm not convinced a sports news site with loose editorial control is a reliable source, and regardless they're just repeating what someone said on a podcast. At best, we could directly cite the podcast for that person's opinion, not use it as a statement of fact. The PBS cite mentions camouflage (which is already covered in the article), but nothing about the warrant being invalid, so that's not useful. Finally, the law firm's article appears to be a WP:BLOG, which again is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes.

If you want to seek more opinions, the article's Talk page is the place to make your case. Take it there. Don't try to just ram this into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverts

I asked a question:

"(for political reasons because you don't like Joe Rogan?)" A question is not "an accusation". The person in question on Joe Rogan's podcast is an expert in the area, specifically in the area of CIA operations and federal agent operations. I don't understand why that would not be a reliable source. Mike Glover's resume is here: https://fieldcraftsurvival.com/about-us/?srsltid=AfmBOoq55jN6r4Lg4qVZZyj9CvKlGpXWt2R_GOooJLarvbndedO5p2FJ

I'm not sure why he would not be considered an expert or a reliable source.

"The PBS cite mentions camouflage (which is already covered in the article), but nothing about the warrant being invalid, so that's not useful."

You originally objected because I didn't have a valid source. You're now changing your critique to say that it IS a valid source (which contradicts your earlier statement), but that the source and information is valid but it's now irrelevant?

Why did you misrepresent the reason for the edit, or are you making up a new reason now?

Secondly, the fact that bench warrant was invalid, is cited by the source that was already on the page before I edited it, source 1:

https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19930423&slug=1697496

Third, the fact that the agents were not surveilling from afar but were ON his property without a valid warrant, as well as covered in camouflaged makes the government's actions illegal.

The article should state up front that these agents were not on his property legally and were dressed in camouflaged and armed. That should be the FIRST thing that people read, not facts buried deep in the article.

Simply saying that they were "surveilling" the situation makes it seem like they were across the street, off the property watching. Federal agents had invaded the property in camouflaged while not identifying themselves (as federal agents or police), without a valid warrant. That is extremely significant in the framing of this episode.

The opening of this article is extremely ambiguous and makes the walkers look like the guilty party when the federal agents were at fault, and were sued and found legally at fault.

Lastly, I do not agree that a practicing lawyer writing an article in his area of expertise is a "blog", nor does anything onthe site mention this is a "blog". 2601:152:4C7C:1D0:98BC:329A:5ED4:E047 (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Take it to the article Talk page. I have zero interest in letting you just accuse me of things, if you want to work out the edit, discuss it on the article Talk. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Y'know what, no, I'll go ahead and take these sources apart.

Glover is not an expert. Even his own "resume" says he's an Army vet and contractor. That does not make him an "expert" on this topic, despite his self-aggrandizing. I also love that he claims he has a Bachelors in "Homeland Security" with no university named. Real piece of work there.

The PBS cite is not a valid source for the claim the warrant was invalid. Because it doesn't mention that at all.

And no, the Seattle Times just says that Weaver's lawyers claim the warrant was invalid, not that it factually is. You cannot simply take your personal opinion that the agents were on the property illegally and force it into the article.

You've misrepresented sources to try and push an agenda. You can attempt to make your arguments on the article Talk page, to see if you can persuade anyone else, but if you attempt to force it into the article again I will have to pursue protection. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Nine Inch Nails?

Yo, heard you're sort of involved with NIИ. News has it that a new tour is happening this year, and ofc they're doing Tron: Ares#Music. Guess we'll be coming across one another a bit more often in 2025. Glad to see another editor interested in a neat subject! Have a great one. BarntToust 21:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, been a fan of Reznor since the 90s. Probably wont have a tour date anywhere near me, oh well, but looking forward to more music. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and definitely an opportunity for a few GAs for their "new material", Tron, the tour, With Teeth short film and video game etc, such and such. Now I mention With Teeth (2005), that's actually when I got into the band. Anywho, sure to be plenty of cool things to work on in the times ahead. See you around! BarntToust 22:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Peel it Back may be something that develops in tandem with this. Figured I'd let you know as sales may happen, eh, Friday? I'm attempting to structure the article as it is at The Eras Tour, which seems weird to think of but I think it'll work. BarntToust 22:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Personal Attacks against Ndiamar

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndiamar (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Law of holes. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

User talk:MatriceJacobine

I shall refrain from further interaction. WP:DENY, is harder to do than it seems. Thank you for the reminder. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 19:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes people try a little to hard to help, and instead just wind up in an argument with someone who clearly doesn't want to listen. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Deleted Comment at Denali RM Discussion

You deleted two comments by @206.174.65.103 from the RM at Talk:Denali, jusfitied as "rm trolling by drive-by IP." 206.174.65.103 undid the deletion ("restoration of consensus argument in favor of the RM, wiped by 'HandthatFeeds' to manipulate the consensus count") only for @Zaathras to delete them again ("an admin removed this, so the removal will stand. complan about it somewhere else"). Here seems like a good "somewhere else."

One of the deleted comments (about burning Teslas) was just trolling, but the other, longer one looks appears to have been a good-faith argument. Indeed, it's probably the only one in that whole discussion to present a new argument ("Recent (Ivan Moore) polling in Alaska indicated no clear consensus with only 54% of Alaskans supporting the retired Indian name...Many on the Alaskan political right...have stopped seeing this as an 'Alaska vs Feds' issue.") since January's failed RM. I won't pretend it didn't contain a little bit off-topic political opinion too, but so do half the comments in there. Was this unintended collateral damage to removing the comment about burning Teslas? If not, why was it removed?

Admin or not, deleting opposing arguments from contentious RM discussions is unacceptable. Unless there's more to this story that I'm not seeing (in which case please share), the comment needs to be restored. Jbt89 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

i do not believe the second comment was actually in good faith either. It was referring to Oppose votes as "cancer", woke efforts to rename famous geographical landmarks, and called Mt Mckinley The traditional White name. The entire !vote was designed to generate ire and controversy, not a good faith argument. I will not be restoring it.

You'll note I have not removed any other !votes in that discussion. This one was pure trolling with no further purpose. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I did notice that you didn't remove any other votes from that discussion. Not "Strong Oppose, we aren't Donald Trump's or your echo chamber, if you need one go to conservapedia", not "strong oppose Why would I agree with someone that claims that WP has been doomed since liberals rule it, i.e. possibly since its creation, as it claims climate change is manmade and other untruths".

Unlike both of those, which I think we would both agree are pure trolling with no further purpose, the comment we are discussing here made several arguments that are actually germane to the RM. And yes, one of those was that McKinley is "the traditional White name." You don't have to agree with that argument or even like it, but plenty of other editors (just search the January RM for "native") have suggested that varying name usage among different ethnic groups is relevant to this question. Arguments you dislike ≠ trolling.

Was there trolling in 206.174.65.103's !vote? Yes, but no more so than is (unfortunately) typical of the tenor of that RM discussion. Its deletion cannot reasonably be ascribed to that. Jbt89 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Admins disagreed with you, so there we are. Claiming that "the traditional White name" is a germane argument is really fucking telling and you need to seriously stop. Do not post on my talk page again. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jbt89 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)