User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Archives (Index)

2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Where does it say "The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else'?

Perhaps I am wrong but I read the given sources, and none of them says (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else).

Maybe I missed it but can you please show me the source and the paragraph that says that statement? If it's not in the source then it's just false information and unsourced original research. And why I've reverted it. Destinyseeker89 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that you didn't see any of the other points I'm beginning to think that you actually haven't read the sources... Do you still stand by "The three given sources does not say (Chinese styled) meritocracy anywhere in its article or that the Chinese gov prioritise stability above everything else. And it does not even call Chinese system as flawed. Instead Christian science monitor article said that democracy was flawed. Also China gov isn't a single party since there are other parties in the system. Give source to support the changes." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question and seems like an irrelevant strawman argument. I simply asked a basic question. Which source says (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else)? Can you point out the source and paragraph? I read all 3 sources and wasn't able to find that statement at all. And it seems like original research to make China seem like it is single minded. That statement (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else) seems rather narrow minded as China probably values alot more like prosperity and other things and why I am curious on where you got that statement from. Destinyseeker89 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Its not a strawman, its you... I didn't say that the sources don't support the use of Chinese style, the imperfect nature of the Chinese political system, stability, and its single party nature, I just provided your quote. Now are you saying that you retract 3/4 of your contentions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question at all but just dodging it by deflecting. It makes me realise you cannot answer it. You are putting in original unsourced research and then getting angry and chucking a tantrum at me when I ask you for proof. You wrote (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else). That's your own opinion and inappropriate for Wikipedia. As unsourced original research is not allowed. None of the sources even remotely says that statement. Destinyseeker89 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That was what I think the source is saying "more stable authoritarian systems like China" etc, just like with the other three. If you want a more explicit source or to reword it thats fine, but you said there were four things that weren't in the sources yet you've only brought one up here. Why is that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MangoTareeface9/Archive Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 2022 Winter Olympics. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

That would be the WP:LEAD, the content is actually supposed to be in some ways syntheses of the body. If you know that you don't have consensus for your change to the lead of a major article yet you make it anyway don't throw a hissy fit at the person who happens to revert you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't cram everything into the lead. The lead sentence only talks about the explicit reason given by the boycotting countries, so we go by the sources where 9 out of 10 quoted human rights in general. The body also has other contents besides the specific language you wanted to force into the lead, so it would be undue anyway. As for consensus, 3 editors already waited over 1 day after pinging for you to leave input in Talk before I made the edit. CurryCity (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what WP:CONSENSUS is, the conversation was still open and remains unclosed nor does there actually appear to be a consensus within the discussion. Also this does not explain the warning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We all want to WP:AGF about you but the evidence are pointing the other way. CurryCity (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Boycot#Diplomatic boycott 2022 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific, my last edit to that article was yesterday and was a revert [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I typed too fast and put in a different article. See Boycott#Diplomatic boycott. CurryCity (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Thats a single revert, it was another editor who reverted you the second time [2]. Also theres no OR or improper synthesis in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Sources used allegations of atrocities, your edit stated genocide in wikivoice. CurryCity (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

No it didn't, it just linked Uyghur genocide which is the common name for the atrocities as decided by consensus. "A number of nations participated in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics to protest the Uyghur genocide and human rights situations in China." The statements "Uyghur genocide" and "atrocities against Uyghurs" are functionally identical as you yourself demonstrated by linking atrocities against Uyghurs to Uyghur genocide [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

not true and WP:COMMONNAME is not for body. We can continue this on the article's Talk. CurryCity (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

What isn't true? It would not be appropriate to have a discussion about your personal allegations against me on the article's talk. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from using final warning templates right away, not checking your own reasoning and facts before dropping them, every time creating a new section on my Talk page. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022

Your recent editing history at 2022 Winter Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—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, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also 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—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Xoltered (talk) 3 February 2022 (UTC) Note that despite being dated "23:49, 29 January 2022" this comment was actually made 18:45, 3 February 2022 [4]

@Xoltered: you're going to have to be specific. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You have been repeatedly reverting edits from multiple editors without proper explanation, and refusing to engage in discussion for long periods only to later revert edits the moment they are made. Please either try to find consensus on the talk page rather than repeatedly editing the article, or disengage. If this behavior continues you may be reported and action may be taken. Xoltered (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Xoltered: Lets see some diffs, copy pasting from the warning won't do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

All diffs will be provided if you are reported as is required. However i don't see why you're asking for a diff considering you have repeatedly revert my edits and recently made this [5] revision of another editor's edit, despite refusing to engage in discussion for a long period, as stated on the talk page, if you wish not to engage you do not have to, you can choose not to edit the article, but you cannot simply repeatedly revert multiple editors changes without engaging in discussion. Xoltered (talk)

NOTE: This warning is to alert you to formally alert you to the edit warring policy, and to alert you that your edits may be considered edit warring, it is not to provide a full case of how you are edit warring, which will be done if you continue and are reported. Xoltered (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:ASPERSIONS diffs actually should be provided. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have provided evidence, and explained it quite clearly. It seems you did this bludgeoning with another editors claim that you were engaging in WP:OR on the very same page, despite it being clear what they were saying you had done and why. Xoltered (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Your evidence of my engagement in an ongoing edit war is a single diff? That doesn't make much sense, generally there would need to be more than one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you even read my explanation? I directly linked to one to criticise your supposed confusion over my warning but mentioned your general behavior as the evidence of potential edit warring. Xoltered (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

General behavior can not be evidence of edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You clearly fail to understand the point of this notice, you have been formally alerted to the edit warring policy, that is all. Xoltered (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Xoltered: It's currently February 2022; I think the section is improperly titled. Also, I don't see any edit warring behavior this month, which makes it a bit odd that you're giving a warning to Horse Eye on February 3. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The edit warring also took place during january, but perhaps it should be retitled. Xoltered (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Due to this edit [[6]] you've lost the privilege of contributing to my talk page. Please do not remove or modify other editor's comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi Horse Eye's Back, what are your opinions on the recently passed America COMPETES Act of 2022? Gordon Guthrie C (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Unlisted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

You get the strangest trolls, LOL. :) BilCat (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I guess technically I should report the account for impersonating Gordon G. Chang but I think its much too funny to do that. Its a good joke too, although personally I prefer Gordon H. Chang to Gordon G. Chang both are excellent writers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

UK Who's Who

Hi Horse Eye's Back,

I saw in a RSN discussion that you were considering nominating UK Who's Who for deprecation. I was involved in a recent AfD discussion which involved it, and would be interested in seeing such a discussion take place. Would you be interested in leading that, and/or pinging me if it takes place? Many thanks, Pilaz (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Pilaz: thanks for starting the conversation, very interested in participating. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem! I guess you saw the RfC at RSN that I started on the source. Pilaz (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I did! Just added my 2c. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Friendly reminder about WP:NPA and WP:CIV

"Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack"

"Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."

Another instance of personal attack will be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents per WP:NPA's guideline regarding recurring, chronic personal attacks. So please give WP:NPA and WP:CIV a read.

Have a good day.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

If someone suggests that you are a duck it is inadvisable to respond by quacking loudly if you wish to disabuse people of the notion that you are a duck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Just my two cents: if somehow it is proven that you are a biased POV editor who seems to weirdly align with INTSF's POV edits, it is inadvisable to make a scene in a sockpuppet investigation related to that user. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That would be very hard to prove, might I suggest even impossible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, you need simpler terms? If someone suggests that you are a duck and you literally have been caught on tape quacking, it is inadvisable to quack again and cause a scene. Have a good day.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, in your argument the "quack" happened months before the duck suggestion. As you said "it is inadvisable to quack again and cause a scene" and yet here you are causing a scene... I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting on my talk page if you wish to continue making threats or causing a scene. You are of course free to open up a discussion at a relevant noticeboard if you don't feel satisfied. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just as a friendly heads up, you aren't the subject of the ANI complaint, but you are mentioned by username. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Antonian Sapphire

I am quite happy to admit that it is my former account.

However, as it has not been used since July 2020 (nearly two years ago), this does not constitute a violation of WP:SOCK as I have not used the account simultaneously in a deceptive or coordinated way in line with this one, or used it to gain a parallel hand in edit wars or more. It is legitimately allowed to move on to another account providing these rules are not broken. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

But you didn't move on, you edited from both accounts for two years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying that, it is obvious that in signing me up for multiple sock puppet investigations, none of which have any grounds whatsoever, you have a vendetta against me and this is only reflective of your aggressive behaviour towards those who convene your narratives on these respective topics---Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't sign you up for multiple sock puppet investigations, just the one and I was right (how can you both say that there were no grounds to link you to Antonian Sapphire and that Antonian Sapphire is your undisclosed former account?). Theres more than two years of overlap between those two accounts, thats not kosher. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert of all my edits to the lede due to "OR"

Would you mind telling me what you believe to be "original research"?

If you are unable to do so, I would kindly ask that you self-revert. Thankyou. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

A number of your changes did not appear to be supported by the given sources giving the impression that you had inserted your own research or opinion into the text. My talk page is not the appropriate place to have this discussion by the way, I suggest that you open a discussion on the article talk page if you want to get consensus for your changes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

They weren't "changes", they were just fleshing out what the sources say on balance. All the stuff that's on the talk page. You don't dispute those sources reliability do you? In which case, why would you object to them being mentioned?

"giving the impression that you had inserted your own research or opinion into the text." Have you read the sources in question? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Again this is the wrong talk page for this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a missing "not" in your comment at ANI?

Is there a "not" missing from they tried to introduce a lot of information into the lead which was supported by the given sources or in the article?

Feel free to remove my comment from your talk page, it is really trivial. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

You are right abut the missing word, thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please be mindful of proper use of warning templates

Please do not add edit warring warnings to talk pages in response to a series of constructive edits with which you disagree, or simply when one of your edits is reverted once as at Boycott, as disputing a revert with which you disagree is not the intended purpose for that template. As explained in the edit summary for the revert, your edit was reverted because it reintroduced WP:NEUTRAL problems that previous edits had already addressed. Thank you. RiverCityRelay (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You hadn't just disputed my edit, you also reverted[7][8][9][10][11] two other editors (before I even arrived on the page) and it seems that you had done the same on the 21st as well[12]. Thats edit warring my friend. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's entirely incorrect, as the edit history for Boycott demonstrates for those edits.

Again, please read edit summaries. You're referring to constructive edits to rewrite two sections that had been mixed up in error, one describing boycotts of the Olympics and other sports events by athletic teams, the other describing diplomatic boycotts, defined specifically in that section as boycotts not involving participating athletes.

The series of edits reorganized the sections and only removed inappropriate information where needed, such as redundant and contradictory descriptions of boycotts already described by the article (such as a vague mention of an Olympics boycott involving multiple African states already properly mentioned and cited in the relevant section on sports events) or purported examples that were not relevant to the section or article topic (such as an article not about a boycott but rather a trade embargo, a separate topic with its own article, or an example that characterized as a "diplomatic" boycott what was simply a plain old boycott organized by non-governmental organizations, which do not have ambassadors, embassies, etc. under treaty or international law). I assume good faith, but I hope this will provide (again) an explanation as to why care needs to be taken when using edit warring templates in situations where they don't apply. RiverCityRelay (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Next time use the article talk page instead of edit warring. I'd also point out that this conversation is supposed to take place on your talk page not mine, reverting my edits to your talk page with "Remove. See your talk page."[13] and opening a discussion here instead of acknowledging the extremely serious issues raised is not a good look. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Spurious use of such templates to advance arguments over edits constitutes potential talk page vandalism; I am thoroughly okay with the "look" of reverting potential vandalism, and will continue to do so. If, instead, you added the template by good faith error, consider the reason it shouldn't be there, on my or any other user's page in such an instance, thoroughly explained to you now.

As already explained, no edit warring occurred, and I am puzzled by your reassertion of what I've already addressed and explained in detail above. Constructive edits with which you disagree are not edit warring. Reverting one of your edits that reintroduced WP:NEUTRAL problems, already addressed, is not edit warring.

I concur wholeheartedly that what you have here is an issue with the article's content, not with anything I've done wrong in terms of editor behavior, and I suggest that you take such issues to the article's talk page in the future instead of trying to build a dubious case for violations through misuse of warning templates on user talk pages. Thank you. RiverCityRelay (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize the arguments of other editors, even if in jest... I clearly did not say that there wasn't an editor behavior issue here. I clearly said that there were "extremely serious issues" with your behavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As I've established above, in detail, that this isn't about editor behavior, and you seem to have decided instead that this dispute over article content at Boycott is best addressed through an entirely different venue (though not the article's talk page, for some reason), I'm happy to end the discussion here. RiverCityRelay (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How is edit warring and suspected sockpuppeteering best addressed on an article talk page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universaladdress Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The wrath of Albert Tachibaña

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Albert Tachibaña (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You're very unhappy today with my unwarranted accusation that I'm someone else's sockpuppet, which is a very uncivilized behavior because it may violate Wikipedia's policy on Harassment. I hope that you will withdraw the report of the so-called puppet and apologize to me, thank you! Albert Tachibaña (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Global?

• Telsho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hi. I don't think your change was correct. Following the link DOES show a global lock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I wasn't sure so I had asked CMD about it [14], looks like I missed it. Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese cuisine recent edits

Just to let you know that the Taiwanese cuisine page has recently gone through edits by other users, namely disagreeing with our previous consensus and that they do not believe we should call Taiwanese cuisine is authentic and retained originality of Chinese food. I personally think the way it is written now made it sound quite out of place so might as well delete it (because it sounds like personal opinion now by Fu Pei Mei, and on Wikipedia we want to ensure neutrality). Interested to see your thoughts. Also want to point out the account that edited appears to be new account.Kazuha1029 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I will take a look. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop sabotaging the historical page of 1987 Lieyu massacre

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1987 Lieyu massacre. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Not the appropriate response to a warning being placed on your talk page. The WP:PERSONALATTACK in particular in inappropriate. Nobody is sabotaging anything... I'm not even sure how adding relevant tags as Amigao did could be perceived as sabotage, it doesn't add or remove anything from the body of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Mickie I'm having a hard time understanding your logic... You removed the warning from your talk page with the edit summary "Removed the malicious personal attack"[15] which doesn't make any sense, thats the exact same thing (minus the inappropriate heading) which you added here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo article history and presentation

Hello. As you see I have reverted you on Kosovo with a longwinded remark in the infobox. I have looked back but don't for the life of me have the patience to locate the precise edit where "uncontested territory" was added, but going back earlier, you can see that it was portrayed in several different ways (both separatist and Serbian territorial integrity viewpoints taking about two lines / Central Serbia / the rest of Serbia, etc.). In all of my years as an editor, I have only know this current arrangement, and I venture very little outside of Bulgaria articles. If it helps, it may pay you to know that discussion never once suggested it should be brazenly asserted "Kosovo borders Serbia", but rather how WP:PARITY can be demonstrated, and this was the best the community could come up with. I would like to provide you with this link that contains a remark from an administrator who in turn adduces discussion, so I am sure that the archives of this time (early 2015) will adequately explain the circumstance to you. Meanwhile, Red Slash has a long history of partisan editing on the Kosovo article, constantly trying to force the article to present the Kosovo-separatist outlook. I don't recommend you follow his example here. If you believe it is time to change something, I suggest use the talk page because I guarantee you there will be bucketloads of editors who respond. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All of the sources agree that Kosovo borders Serbia, this is true even if one holds that Kosovo is part of Serbia the difference there would be the internal vs external nature of the border. If as you say a consensus exists then you're actually going to need to track it down to invoke it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hang on a second. It depends on source. Those which treat Kosovo as an independent country say "Kosovo borders Serbia", but not those which observe Serbia's territorial integrity. They say that it borders Central Serbia. Besides, it is not for one to determine his own interpretation of the "sources" and make bold edits or bold restorations. Your proposed change, whether based on right or wrong information, needs to be adduced on the talk page, and in particular, how you believe you are satisfying WP:PARITY in light of the fact that more than 50% of the globe recognises Serbia's territorial integrity of Kosovo. I gather consensus must have been taking place around the time I first felt comfortable enough to hit the edit button without embarrassing myself over my ability to write in English (Jan 2015). I'm happy to have a look. If I find it, I will get back. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"50% of the globe recognises Serbia's territorial integrity of Kosovo" is irrelevant, why bring it up? We care what WP:RS say not countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All right so you have edited since 2018. You're wrong about RS however. RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints. Where presentation is the bone of contention as is the case here, the quintessential factor is WP:PARITY. We don't just parrot what RS claim. So-called "reliable sources" can make reference to tyrants, despots and can qualify leaders who frustrate their worldview as "evil", but we don't get to add such qualifiers and change monikers simply based on the fact reliable sources use the terminology. Besides, I daren't say it was probably mentioned in the discussions anyhow. If I were in your situation and confident as you are, I would be requesting a discussion at the talk page right now. Make your proposal, and each of us will present an iVote with an associated comment. --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You understand that parity is short for "Parity of sources," right? We don't take unreliable sources into consideration at all. The viewpoints of editors is immaterial, its the views expressed in reliable sources we care about. I'm not sure that the article talk page is the right place to educate you about wikipedia basics... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The day I need education from you is the day they read my obituary. And believe you me, if I ever feel I need enlightening from you, you'll be the first to know. I'm not going to repeat what RS stands for, so my reply to your above comment is to refer you to my last post here. In the meantime, if you feel somebody forgot something, you are welcome to inspect the discussion since I have now located it. I'm gone for the night. I have to drive to the north of England now with a delivery for 6am. Night-night. --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You said you would find a consensus, thats not a consensus. If you don't want to be educated thats fine, but "RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints." just isn't how it works, editors aren't allowed to present viewpoints in articles thats aren't supported by RS. That would be WP:OR or fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if we do want to base our work on what RS say... CMD (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Very well if you want to play games. Reliable sources say that Kosovo is disputed and that more than 50% of the globe recognises Serbia's territorial integrity of the region. Now, if you have any ideas about satisfying WP:PARITY then I am all ears. Until then, I'm done with this conversation. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edin balgarin: I can't find *any* reliable sources which refer to the border in the way in which you wish the lead to, if you could provide them I would be very grateful. Note that I'm not asking for sources which say that Kosovo is disputed, I'm asking for sources which support using that specific language as the result of such a dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your edit summary of "SMACK" when reverting that IP vandals edits. I don't know why but I found that extremely funny. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Balkans and Eastern Europe

Perfunctory notice:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Also, please bear in mind that Kosovo has a 1 revert per 24 hours restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thanks for the note on the 1RR, I haven't dipped more than a toe into the Balkans space yet but I can see why that would be necessary. On an unrelated side note I'm not entirely satisfied with editing in the China-Taiwan, Arab-Israeli, and Balkan/Eastern Europe topic areas... I've been planning to get heavily into gender identity and the intersection of race and intelligence, those must be safe topics right? (joke) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

At least you have the good sense not to editing in pro-wrestling or beauty pageants! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, Crikey, are you telling me that those seemingly inert subjects compel more sanctioning and blocking than Balkan subjects?! :)))) --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hilarious self notification of contentious topic area

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Michael Jackson. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question, why does Michael Jackson have discretionary sanctions? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to deal with that, much love and respect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, et al.

Hi. A belated welcome to Wikipedia, and to the many reality TV articles I've been editing for years, including The Real World.

For the purposes of mentioning the mere content of a created work, such as a novel, TV episode, film, comic book, etc. that work can function as its own primary sources -- although in the case of serialized works such as TV shows and comics, it is reasonable to tag it in order to request the specific episode or issue in which the info appeared. It is not accepted practice, however, to remove it wholesale. This does not pertain simply to the work that serves as the subject of the article, but any other related work, such as spinoffs, that is mentioned in an article. I know this, because I'm the primary writer of the text of those guidelines.

What they prohibit is material that is analytical or evaluative, which does require a citation of a secondary source. But merely relating facts given in an episode, such as how money a contestant won in The Challenge, or the appearance of the cast in a reunion show, is not evaluative or analytical. Nightscream (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Nightscream: Relating facts about an episode of "The Challenge" on a page about a season of The Real World is not what is covered by WP:TVPLOT, thats about summarizing a film or TV shows plot on its own page. Also note that its covered by WP:BLP so wholesale removal is actually policy: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." At the very least its WP:UNDUE. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

"...thats about summarizing a film or TV shows plot on its own page."
No it isn't. The subject of the article is irrelevant, because the principle at the heart of the guideline is not article subject-specific. The principle is derived from the understanding any description of content of the plot/content of a novel, film, tv episode etc, is presumed to come from that work, so long as it's been released. In this way, the need to inform the reader of where information in a given passage comes from, per WP:V, is satisfied. For this reason, there is no logical reason it would apply only to the subject of an article. Rather, it refers to any description about the content of a creative work. I know this because I wrote the text of those guidelines.

"Also note that its covered by WP:BLP..."
Wrong again. The material in question is not contentious, because it merely concerns the content of episodes. BLP was never intended to mean that you cannot source the content of a film or television episode to the film or television itself. I know this because I've been editing Wikipedia for over 17 years, and the community consensus that informs that policy has never reflected your interpretation of it.

For example, the Jean-Claude Van Damme article mentions that he appeared in an episode of Friends, but there is no citation for that article, other than a wikilinked mention of the episode's name. Could you add a secondary cite to that passsage? Sure. But is it required? No. And the idea that the lack of one would call for that passage to be removed is absurd. Similarly, in the article for that episode, there is no citation for the mention of his name in the plot synopsis (nor for the Lead section or Infobox). Are you suggesting that BLP requires a citation to be added to the Synopsis? Because if so, I'm sorry, but you're wrong.

Trust me, what you're saying does not reflect how the editing community here treats television episodes or any other television programming. If you don't believe me, then ask around. Ask other editors who work on television articles, and/or reality television articles in particular, and you'll see. Nightscream (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

No coverage means something like that Challenge section is WP:UNDUE, even if the use is kosher their combination into a table is WP:SYNTH unless someone has actually covered that topic. Those guidelines do not override WP:BLP, when we're talking about actors/living people and not characters then we need actual sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Meatpuppet farm?

You get an awful lot of "critisism". Are most of these CCP meatpuppet trolls? BilCat (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I get a shocking amount of press in certain circles [16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if that "writer" was in Vietnam today? Hmmm. I hope China is paying him well. BilCat (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo not listed as country

Hi. My belief is that it is high time we got Kosovo out of the dark ages of the past and realize that reliable sources say it is a country. I'm with you all the way on the border with Serbia issue, but also feel there is little point calling it a border unless we prioritize Kosovo's sovereignty from the first line, 'a country'. If we can show that the 'disputed' thing is a WP:FRINGE then it can go down to third, maybe fourth paragraph. Most young people just see Kosovo as a country and don't concern themselves that its northern and eastern neighbour does not recognize it. Much like Pakistan does not recognize Israel. Who cares?? :)) I reckon that we can reduce the effect of 'disputed territory' the we have pulled the rug out from under the desperation of people crying out 'uncontested territory' and all else to that effect. --Thelostranger (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)