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.

Road notability

WP:GEOROAD: Road networks: International road networks (such as the International E-road network), Interstate, national, state and provincial highways are typically notable. MarconiCheese (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@MarconiCheese: typically, not always... Not automatically... There does actually have to be significant coverage. Something like South Dakota Highway 43 is not typical, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Typically notable" means usually notable; it doesn't mean the road must be a "typical" road.MarconiCheese (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@MarconiCheese: Yes it means usually notable... As in most of the time they're notable and some of the time they aren't. So what is your problem with some of them not being notable? Because you appear to be rejecting that possibility entirely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an argument the other members of WP:USRD have been making for at least a year now to no avail. They're going to keep mass tagging the articles to no end. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 21:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm informed by reliable sources that some members of USRD have been making this argument since 2005 to no avail... I don't get this idea that we have to fight to the death or something with the larger community (you know, the one which decides what the rules are not the wikiproject), what's wrong with a tag? I'd get it if I were just willy nilly nominating pages for deletion or merger but why is the tag offensive? Its a tag, is being used for its proper purpose... Thats good editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it really doesn't matter in the end. The highway articles have been already been saved and imported to a new wiki and they'll survive outside Wikipedia. Where the rest of the USRD project has full and total control over standards and all. Most of us are abandoning Wikipedia and will no longer maintain the articles on this site. You can do whatever you like to these articles from here on out. I resign. — MatthewAnderson707 (talk|sandbox) 19:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I know you feel like something has gone wrong here... But this is exactly what is supposed to happen, wikis are supposed to be forked when groups within the wiki have different ideas about what the goals or boundaries of the project are. I hope you continue editing the non-roads parts of wikipedia even if your roads related editing moves to a new project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

You didn't describe your argument, or what you referred to as the long term argument or the situation as you see it so there's not much to go on. Is your argument that those types of roads are/ should be categorically/ unconditionally notable notable? That a wikiproject should be a higher authority than than the overall community for all articles that it considers to be of interest to the project? By "mass tagging" do you mean just the least notable of those types? Or a good portion of them? Certainly, the more extreme of the possible answers aren't going to fly in Wikipedia, and a more obscure specialized project might give greater freedom for those. But IMO Wikipedia does have more lenient notability sourcing standards for roads and geographic features than for most other topics and perhaps that might be enough for some folks working in the area. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Horse Eye's Back,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.).

We wanted to invite you to join the study because you are heavily involved in various policy discussions in the "Wikipedia talk" namespace. Such discussions tend to involve a lot of back-and-forth debating between editors, which is exactly the type of environment that our study targets.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Tim Ballard, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. FMSky (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@FMSky: there is a valid reason (WP:BLP) given in the edit summary, did you use the wrong template? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you remove his bibliography? --FMSky (talk) 15:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It was unsourced and on a BLP ("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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."). I also don't appear to have been reverted, was that really the template you meant to use? If so that seems a little misleading/dishonest. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

They had their ISBN listed, so you dont need a source. Have you ever seen a single article with a source behind a book someone published? --FMSky (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You know what is required here. An ISBN listing is not an inline citation. There is no exception to BLP for books that I am aware of, is there one? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did you also remove his podcast (which was sourced)? Your edits dont make any sense tbh --FMSky (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you can answer this one, was it sourced to a high quality reliable source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tim-ballard-podcast/id1695222865 --FMSky (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

That appears to be a link to his podcast. Where is the source which establishes due weight for inclusion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Btw is really not helpful to go into random BLPs and blank out half of the content. It would be more productive if you could look up sources for the content -- FMSky (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Half? You need to work on this loose relationship you have with the truth, you can't keep telling lies like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyways i will look up refs now for the deleted content and see if its necessary to have ones for every book published --FMSky (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

If a book doesn't have independent coverage how does it meet our WP:DUEWEIGHT requirement? Wikipedia is not a collection of all the information in the world, its only a collection of information which is due based on coverage. The bibliography on a Wikipedia page is for all the author's work which is due, not all their work which exists... Its not supposed to be exhaustive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Having a bibliography in an article of an author is obviously due. Also here is just a random article of Forbes talking about his books https://www.forbes.com/sites/devinthorpe/2015/12/16/meet-a-guy-who-has-devoted-his-life-to-freeing-slaves/ --FMSky (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a contributor not a staff writer. I assume you are aware of the longstanding consensus around Forbes. If not Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Forbes.com contributors. Also on review the source doesn't appear to talk about his books at all, the only bit about his books is from a pull of his twitter bio. Again we have a problem where what you say and the truth are not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

My bad i didnt see its from his twitter bio. here then https://www.wwlp.com/business/press-releases/ein-presswire/623557645/tim-ballard-founder-and-ceo-of-operation-underground-railroad-o-u-r-interviewed-in-authority-magazine/ https://heavy.com/news/tim-ballard/ --FMSky (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The first would appear to be a press release and the second is in Heavy which isn't where it needs to be for BLP claims Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Heavy.com and its just a passing mention "Ballard is author of the books “The Covenant: One Nation Under God” and “The Covenant, Lincoln and The War,” according to the speaker’s bureau website." Is there really not solid coverage of his books? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Tora Tora

Hi, first of all please stop browsing through my edit history. Its a bit creepy. Secondly, AllMusic is considered the go-to source for music related articles. Its anything but unreliable --FMSky (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There's no logic to any of that. I'm not stalking or harassing you, its you on my talk page not the other way around. How can a database run by an advertising company be consider the go-to source for anything on wikipedia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You found the article by browsing through my recent edits. As for Allmusic, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources --FMSky (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't reasonably ask anyone to stop browsing through your edit history unless you believe there is an attendant behavioral issue. Its supposed to be browsed, thats why it exists. As for the link you've provided thats a wikiproject page, it has not been endorsed by the community nor does it actually link to a clear consensus on reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The site is used as a source in tens of thousands of music articles https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/AllMusic&limit=500&dir=next&offset=0%7C71585 and discussions about its reliability are found under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources --FMSky (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

(possibly helpful comment) The community-based consensus on the use of All Music can be found at WP:ALLMUSIC. Its use appears rather limited, except for reviews.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. That is as you say very limited but allowed for certain things, lightyears away from being the "the go-to source for music related articles" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Arguing from number of uses rather than consensus is never a solid strategy, number of uses has no bearing on reliability. The wikiproject page appears to be plain wrong, most wikiproject pages unendorsed by the community will have multiple major errors or incongruence in them, thats why they don't count for anything. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Commenting on content, not the contributor

Regarding this discussion: a polite reminder to avoid negative comments directed at another contributor is fine, but continuing the same behavior after being warned is not. All I'm asking is for you to participate in discussions in a more constructive manner. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 17:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

There we go! This is the appropriate place to raise such an issue, not hypocritically on the same page. This is constructive and I'm so happy you finally got around to not editing in a disruptive manner (like before, when you were insisting on discussing commenters and not content in a content discussion)! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Huh. What an fascinatingly nonconstructive response. To wrap this up, comments like this, this, and linked above unnecessarily personalize discussions, something it looks like you were blocked for before. Not being a jerk is criminally easy. I'm asking you to end this behavior vs. a future ANI, so as a referee might say, just keep it clean. Good day, Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)