Jump to content

User talk:Horse Eye's Back

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Symphony of Chaos (talk | contribs) at 13:59, 4 January 2024 (→‎Reverting your bullshit edits: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Just a quick note

You made an edit, I reverted, and per BRD you should address that on the talk page. But you reverted again, that's where the edit warring starts. And your comments at RSN were somewhat disingenuous and so not helpful. I'm just looking for sincere evaluations of those three sources (hence the tags), not a dispute, which I why I didn't remove the entry. I'm not looking for commemts on other entries, editors are free to start their own discussions on any of other entries if they like. Thank you - wolf 15:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild: You made an edit[1]... I reverted[2]... If you wanted to follow the optional BRD process that would have been the time. Please don't try to spin history to your benefit, its of no use when there is a public history and a less charitable editor might accuse you of lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I not looking for a fight here, I'm really not. (I don't have the energy for it.) I know we've disagreed in the past (but I think we've agreed on some things as well), anyway the point is, I found what I believe to be real issues with these refs, and I'm just looking for additonal reviews with sincere feedback. That's all. I have no agenda here except what's best for the article. Once this is resolved one way or 'tother, I'm going to go through all the other entries and their sourcing as well. I see that sofrep has been pulled, it's possible that some other sources are probematic as well. Anyway, have a nice day. - wolf 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for a fight, just an apology. I don't think anyone appreciates when people say derogatory things which aren't true about them. I didn't choose to ignore BRD, I was not being disingenuous, I was not being unhelpful, and I was not being insincere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Query

I don't love what I see from JPS in the diffs provide. Can you say what you love the least in those five dffs? Anything you would want me to redact? Cool if the answer is, "I don't have time for this nonsense." Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything because that kind of comment tends to make me curious.

jps (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, always happy to explain myself. Its the lashing out in frustration, I get that you're frustrated and I strongly empathize with that frustration but the edit summaries are lacking in collegiality (a sin of which I myself am in no way free). I also don't like the dangling of threats (even if they are not the sort of threats we disallow), either take them to the noticeboard or don't but don't taunt them with the possibility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ජපස: would have been way cooler if I said "Begone with your mishegoss I'm up to my eyebrows in overcommitment" but you deserve a real answer and I don't want you to worry that I meant something much more damning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Banish me to the hinterlands if this causes more grief, but here are two additional thoughts:
  • lashing out *cringe*... where do you see that? I don't feel very WP:MASTODONy, but understand that sometimes things don't appear the way I think they do.
  • As for threatening to take people to the noticeboards, that's an interesting take. "Just do it (or don't do it), but don't threaten people." Thing is, I'm fairly allergic to noticeboards because I have very limited confidence in powers-that-be. I would rather work things out and I think that telling the other party that things have gotten so bad that I'm considering noticeboard filing is fair warning. I actually would have been okay if things settled down in that situation. Though I have severe reservations about the editorial bent that is the impact of the new article and the framings presented, I also think that the Origin of COVID-19 article deserves some cleanup and there may actually be some stuff in the new article that is worth salvaging. I guess I could just never tell people that I'm thinking of taking them to WP:AE. It may be that I've spent so long in the culture of WP:CTOP requiring notifications that I think it deserves fair warning. Hell, I appreciate it if people warn me. Anyway, you think I should redact the perceived "threats"? jps (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I don't think I need to explain to an editor of your experience why "Removing some *real problematic* POV-pushing of the uncertainty monster (that bleeds quite naturally into WP:FALSEBALANCE trolling)." isn't optimal. I don't think that you need to redact anything, our policy against threats has an exemption for exactly this sort of thing (good faith discussion of the potential to elevate to a noticeboard), I just personally don't love it. TLDR I wouldn't feel comfortable endorsing everything you did, but I don't feel comfortable seriously condemning any of it. Certainly should never have been taken where it was, nothing actionable there outside of perhaps a boomerang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That's cool. I wish there was a button for: "My commentary is about the impact of this wording as it is read by the general public: it is not a judgement of the personal character of they who wrote it." That's what I wish could be interpreted each time I try to make points like that, but, well, WP wouldn't be WP without people complaining about the staunch way we treat certain topics. Criticism taken on board! Over and out! jps (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

I won't revert your edit since it's just a couple of words, but you do know the lead has 40 refefences right? SBM is not the "sole reference". This wording could use improvement and is not an accurate summary of that section, which talks about SCM's reliability and does not emphasize "sole reference" at all. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sole reference for what it was being used to support... Not for the entire lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Point 5"

Sorry again for mistaking your meaning, and for being so strident. A policy cleanup like this is fragile and difficult to pull off.

It is possible that "The article is not based primarily on such sources" (and the RS sentence restating it with some elaboration) no longer entirely reflect consensus, at least as to particular article types. Two that Thryduulf highlighted could probably be summarized more generally as "Articles on detailed non-fiction works, such as legislation or technical standards, which are notable but summarized in secondary sources in insufficient detail for proper encyclopedic treatment"; and "Articles on subjects, often in side-articles on sub-topical detail that have been split from main ones for length reasons, that provide lists of detailed facts, e.g. all the stops on a transit line, for which a primary source is authoritative but secondary sources simply reguritate that information from the primary source anyway". Both of these ate cases in which there is a single primary source that is by definition authoritative for the subject. They're unusual, and raise the "hard cases make bad law" issue.

Even if Thryduulf in the long run is not correct about lasting community consensus about these article types, the observation that the tacked-on sentence from RS is guideline-style language trying to apply and explicate policy language, and doesn't need to be merged into the policy (being redundant and inappripriately worded), is defensible and others have now made the same point.

A substantive change to that "point 5" policy line-item would need to be its own proposal (either also at WT:V or more practically at WP:VPPOL, given the far-reaching, cross-categorical effect such a change would have).

In the complete other direction, attempts to enforce "point 5" more stingently at (or against the existence of) particular articles are something for those articles's own talk pages, or FAR in some cases, or AfD if it came to that (and there is a high risk of failure because of previous consensus to keep them, which would probably resolve back to making a substantive change to the wording of "point 5").

It's not something we can address (in either direction) in what needs badly to remain a straightforward merge and copyedit proposal. If it veers into trying to make substantive changes to the policy's actual meaning or its interpretation/enforcement, then it will trainwreck pretty quickly, and "balkanize" these POLICYFORKs even further. There would be a lasting suspicion that the supposed merge discussion was a sneaky attempt to change policy out from under everyone's noses, and the BLP and RS regulars will become defensive of "their versions" (especially at BLP which is also a policy, and which is kind of collectively paranoid as to both scope and editorial pool). I've seen this happen before. E.g. WP:CITEVAR is not part of the MoS, despite being a style guideline section, for this kind of reason, a dispute dating back to the early days of the project; the split has basically become irreparable for all intents and purposes, and this has actually had negative results that I probably don't need to dwell on here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries and I'm sorry it went edgewise... I actually agree with removing the tacked on sentence because its redundant. My worry is that the consensus will be pointed to at sometime down the road as evidence that consensus was against the removed text because consensus was against what was expressed in that text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, things like that can always be a concern. That's part of why I'm pushing to fix the syntax problems in the material now, because there's reasonable likelihood of a second round of revision later being short-circuited by "you can't change this text, because we just had a discussion that ended with a consensus for this exact language" arguments. (Cf. literally years of wrangling over the wording at MOS:GENDERID, along similar lines: "This text was set by an RfC, so leave it alone even though it's crap.") That's why I'm not happy with the alternative "minimum change" proposal. The existing language and the drafts closely based on it would not pass a 13-year-old's middle-school grammar test, but we could end up stuck with one of them for an extended period. The time to fix the problem is now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP policies

I'm aware of both, I just couldn't see how either was relevant. Thmazing (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer queries on your own talk page, I have duplicated this reply there for your convenience. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Nicholas Windsor

Hi. Just wanted to say that I agree with most of the recent changes you made to that page, however, there were one or two parts that discussed his work with anti-abortion organizations and some of his articles which I feel could be relevant given the fact that there is a section titled "Religion". I haven't had time to look at all of the citations but given the fact that you recently worked on the article I just wanted to bring it to your attention first. Best. Keivan.fTalk 05:03, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope you can find secondary sources for most of it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits on Mark Zuckerberg

I know what you intend to say and I had support you but I myself did this under a fellow editor's work on other pages of my interest where he omitted the "then President" citing Obama, Biden and Trump being well-known. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then point me to that editor and I will have a discussion with them... They appear to be mistaken. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was User:Векочел. MSincccc (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have queried them. Its a reasonable position to take if it just said "President" but "then President" confers more information than just title so the same objection can not be made. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna lie...

...your overuse of maintenance tags is starting to reek of WP:NOTHERE. I suggest you drop the stick. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 19:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: Can you give some examples of what you consider to be my overuse of maintenance tags? I don't believe I stray from community standards or expectations but I'm always happy to take constructive criticism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you need examples that bad, let's start with List of highways numbered 220, where you put a notability tag on a disambiguation page. I could go all night listing examples. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LilianaUwU: List of highways numbered 220 is not a disambiguation page, its a list and as such must meet the notability requirements of stand alone lists. I have it on my list to turn it into a disambiguation page though (thus solving the notability issue), want to help me with that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem a little weird to tag a dab page with a notability tag, but I will admit to being a little confused on the ins and outs of the whole list/dab/set index thing in the first place. For what it's worth, I think you are definitely "HERE", although it does seem kind of strange to go through tagging like ten articles for notability thirty seconds apart. jp×g🗯️ 05:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shying away from NPP

You piqued my interested here: do you mind elaborating on what you find bureaucratic about NPP, and why it keeps you away? I don't disagree, just curious to hear more. – Joe (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its primarily the paramilitary aspect of it. We don't have many paramilitary groups on wiki and even less that are official or semi-official (Guerrilla Skeptics is a good example of a wiki paramilitary group that lacks recognition/legitimacy) so the ones we do have always seem to attract a certain kind of try-hard jerk (a problem not unique to on-wiki paramilitary groups, its a problem for all of them) who thrives in that sort of heavily bureaucratic militarized atmosphere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm an NPP coordinator and happened to see this message. Was wondering if you want to talk a bit more about what parts of NPP are paramilitary, and ideas for fixing this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its something that needs to be fixed... I don't think there's any way to construct a New Page Patrol (or New Page Army, or New Page Battalion, or New Page War Party) which isn't paramilitary. The "fix" would be for it to cease existing altogether and for all editors to effectively take on the role equally without rank or distinction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically how NPP operated until the introduction of the NPR user group in 2016. I supported that at the time, because letting everyone review meant there was a lot sloppy reviewing happening, but in retrospect I do wonder if that was a mistake. Making it a closed group—along with this silly trend of giving eachother increasingly elaborate titles—does appear to have created these hierarchical, us-against-them tendencies that I don't remember being nearly as prominent in pre-2016 NPP. I'm unsure if there's a way back, but I keep trying to find it. Thanks for taking the time to answer. – Joe (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have to find a way to incentivize the really awesome NPP editors while disincentivizing the power trip crowd. IMO the post-2016 setup does the opposite (take that with the massive grain of salt that I know next to nothing about pre-2016 NPP as it was before my time). I don't think its any coincidence that the best people I know in NPP are perpetually burnt out while a few jerks I wish would take a hike seem to have endless reserves of editing energy. Not of course unique to NPP in any way [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very good point. – Joe (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective. Do you consider any other WikiProjects to be paramilitary, or do you think this is only a problem with NPP? –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of the Patrols are to some extent, but NPP is really tops the pile... ARS maybe second and then its the rest. I want to be clear that I don't necessarily think that paramilitary groups are a problem per say more they have different problems than other areas of wikipedia. There are many positives that come from a mission driven culture (the super PC way to say paramilitary these days) and the sheer prolificness of NPP is a good example of that. If there are any inherent problems they're philosophical, the conflict between the way paramilitary groups inherently frame operations in military terms and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful Editing

Edits like this ("ignorant") and this ("No. You're wrong") are clearly unhelpful and calling someone ignorant can be insulting and is borderline a personal attack. In the future, disengage or keep your commentary focused on the topic and not the editor. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: ignorant is not an insult, we were all ignorant of wikipedia's policies and guidelines once. Do you disagree? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity check

I have some NPP guy bugging me, saying that NBC News is a fine and dandy source for pogroms in Poland. Picking on you because you were in the same case I was; seriously, am I the asshole here? He says it looks fine to him. I've already given him a link to the current standard and to Barkeep49 saying on Jan 1 that a "respectable institution" is academically focused, as in a major university publisher. Apparently that's "needling". Afaik the remedy for this is AE, and I have neither the bandwidth nor the inclination. Any suggestions? Elinruby (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i guess I should say they, but they do really seem like a he Elinruby (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be some ambiguity in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Amendment (May 2023) which needs to be clarified, I would say that in terms of the letter of what is written you are absolutely right... It is not valid unless a new and explicit consensus is obtained by that editor and that editor alone (For example the way its written if editor A, B, and C come to a consensus that the source is usable but none of them restore it editor D who did not participate in the consensus can't restore it without going and getting a new consensus). In terms of spirit I'd say NBC is ok because we already have a positive RSN consensus on its reliability, to me it just makes sense that this was meant to put a check on new non-academic sources... Not to bar non-academic sources which already have a consensus of generally reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TLDR I would look into asking for a clarification/rewrite of the May 2023 Amendment rather than going straight to AN, every time I re-read the amendment it looks more and more confusing... I stated off thinking that I knew what it said but I am less and less sure of that as I spend more time on the subject (which is the opposite of what should happen with well written guidance). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting your bullshit edits

Even someone as hopelessly dim-witted as you must have realised by now that I know how to change my IP at will. You have stupidly chosen to create a lot of unnecessary misery for yourself. Symphony of Chaos (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&oldid=1193571042"