Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Why are you at 2RR at 2021 Canadian church burnings during a current talk page discussion on this exact issue?

[edit]

I saw blanking; I reverted it. Now that I see there's active discussion on the talk page, your second blanking is in clear violation of our WP:BRD social norm. Now you're obliged to talk this out, or continue your edit war. I take no position on the merits. BusterD (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BusterD: The social norm is that BRD is optional... I chose the option of not following it... You misunderstand the norm, although it is clearly stated in BRD... "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus." (emphasis in original) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also just to be clear "I saw blanking" is not a valid reason to revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blanking cited text out of the blue is one of the more common reasons I find myself reverting. I see such action as disruptive while discussion is ongoing. My actions are always subject to review. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't out of the blue (it had a solid explanation that withstands scrutiny) and you said that you weren't aware of the discussion when you reverted. That means that you reverted without a valid reason... Which is universally seen as disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD: Can I get an apology and an acknowledgment that you will be changing the way you edit to conform to community expectations and norms? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi what got blanked, please? Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have looked now. I see the same person is still reverting to keep the same stuff in. BusterD that's really not an article you should jump into without asking some questions, and you definitely shouldn't be believing the one guy who is claiming consensus, because he doesn't have it. And that isn't a discussion btw, it's extended IDHT. Elinruby (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
see what I mean, though, HEB? Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request closed

[edit]

The Noleander clarification request, in which you were listed as an involved editor, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states:

Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis.

Among the participating Arbitrators, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Task Force

[edit]

Hey HEB, I've waded into the Wine subject area accidentally after rewriting Tom Stevenson's page. I've been writing a few articles over the past few days from red-links I've been creating, but I've been nervous about sourcing. Articles I've created: Tony Jordan (winemaker), Ao Yun, Essi Avellan and Brian Croser. I'm a bit dubious about the-buyer.net, The Drinks Business (maybe industry publications, paid to write), Wineanorak and Fine - The Wine Magazine. If you have any thoughts on these or resources for writing these articles that would be valuable I'd love to hear about them. Thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Taiwan under Qing rule. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qiushufang: you did not remove the content on OR grounds... You removed it on reliability grounds... Your claims about reliability were not veracitous... Your edits were reverted on those grounds... To now claim that this is about OR is disengenous and uncivil. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Thai beauty

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Horse Eye's Back. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thai beauty, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

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

  • adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
  • comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
  • follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
  • comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
  • refrain from gaming the system.

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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert: thank you, I have previously received this notification and you can find that in the page archive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading removal of the dejure status of Somaliland.

[edit]

Hi there, I have been studying the status of Somaliland for a while, and I think your last edit that removed its political status in the light of international law is misleading. While I agree the references doesn't share explicitly the term dejure, its equally mentions Somaliland as part of Somalia. You can also look at other more recent and clear political statements such as https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=441-00706 and https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/g7-foreign-ministers-meeting-communiques-april-2024/g7-foreign-ministers-meeting-communique-capri-19-april-2024-addressing-global-challenges-fostering-partnerships. Wordings like Somaliland part of Somalia as enough prove. Would please revert the change back? Many thanks Hiyam252 (talk) 21:42, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you agree that what was removed failed verification... That doesn't sound misleading. What you have provided as "enough prove" would appear to be WP:OR, its important that what we say is accurate and due. Also note that I did not remove "its political status in the light of international law" perhaps you misunderstand something here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources can be sited that will I dig and share. But you are we not treating Somaliland as Transnistria for instance? People deserve to know that it's seen as part of another recognised entity and therefore not sovereign. Unrecognised but sharing and hiding why not is true misleading Hiyam252 (talk) 03:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article goes into great detail about the situation, what hiding? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just wondering why G7 countries press statements calling Somaliland as part of Somalia is not a valid source? also Magazines such as council on Foreign relations is not accepted? Hiyam252 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because WP:DUEWEIGHT, we also have a number of sources which say that Somaliland is not part of Somalia and even more which say that the question is in dispute. On a side note have you ever edited using another account before, perhaps one which is now blocked? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversing with FyzixFighter

[edit]

I've been on Wikipedia a while and have dealt with a lot of zealous Latter Day Saints who genuinely come on here to turn this place into an apologetic site underhandedly. User:FyzixFighter is not one of them. He may have a clear LDS bias, but does a LOT of good work keeping articles clean. I beg you to give him the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time and effort. Epachamo (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, in general I consider you more disruptive than FyzixFighter... And I have not taken any action to "chase him off" nor have I done so with you, but the topic area would objectively be a more civil and more academic space with neither of you in it. I would prefer that your absence be voluntary rather than imposed but if someday we have to talk about topic bans for the two of you we can discuss them together. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, so I guess we will have to learn to work together civilly. Please know the olive branch is always extended. Epachamo (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can only hope both of your editing gets better. Remember that if your practices and standards reflected community practices you guys wouldn't be getting this endless stream of pushback from the community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the edit reports[1][2], you guys are two peas in a pod not a pea and a carrot. FyzixFighter is actually arguably less of a LDS SPA than you are, they have two non-LDS topics in their ten top edited... You only have one (I have ten just to be clear). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't have any in the top ten. I admit my ignorance that I don't know what SPA stands for. Single Purpose Account? Sock Puppet Account? Somewhat Physically Alluring? Epachamo (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Single purpose account is correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, what viewpoint do you think I'm pushing? Epachamo (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the specific topic but in general I find you both to push a pro-LDS point of view, for example you are both pushing that Dallin H. Oaks is an independent source on Church matters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, to be clear, I am pushing that Oaks be introduced as a future Apostle and member of the First Presidency. His stake callings (particularly stake mission president) are peanuts, makes it look like we are trying too hard and will be a NPOV backfire. As far as Brodie, she is a hero to exmormons, and seeing her presented as a straight up "Mormon" historian would really irk exmormons. I try to be as neutral as possible, so I appreciate the feedback. Most of the time I'm accused of having an anti-Mormon bias so this is a bit new for me. I hope if you delve into my history, you would agree. Here are a couple contributions that I hope demonstrate a sincere desire to add complete, neutral views on the subject of Mormonism [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I could keep going for a while, but hopefully this is enough to at least convince you that I'm not a SPA. At least not with a pro-LDS bias. Epachamo (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't agree, in any other topic area we would note the expert's non-independence. I think your editing in general would improve if you became more familiar with how things are done on wikipedia and not just how things have been done in a specific problematic topic area. To be fair I'm also a little confused as to how we get to a situation where an editor who doesn't have any significant connection to a topic area makes thousands of edits to that topic area and almost nothing else. Trust me, doing more generalist editing makes your specialist editing better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Introducing him as a future Apostle would make clear that he is not independent, and I'm ok with that. I do not agree with that characterization that I do almost nothing else. I have made significant contributions to a broad number of pages on very diverse topics. Here is a sampling: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19]. It is true that I have made numerous edits on topics related to the Latter Day Saint movement. It is an incredibly fascinating area, with a thriving research community. I'd hope I come across as a Wikipedia version of Jan Shipps, who was respected by pretty much everyone for her dispassionate historical research. Epachamo (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shipps is also a historian of the American West writ large, her efforts to describe the donut hole so to speak do not come at the expense of expertise on the donut. In general the advice people give out is to do no more than 10% of your editing in any given topic area. I've found that to be good advice, but as always your mileage may differ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, makes sense. Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&oldid=1240561587"