User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2021/May

Statement not strong enough for wikivoice, and breaking the 3RR rule

Hi Horse Eye, re this edit [1], the Imam of the mosque states that Id Kah is a functional, working mosque [2]:

It is very comfortable for devotees to attend religious service in the mosque.

Your edit states in Wikivoice, and in the lead, that the mosque is no longer functional and is just a tourist attraction. It's not appropriate to write that since the imam says the mosque is functional: what you're writing is contentious. Furthermore you're using two newspapers to make this assertion as fact, The Independent and the Globe and Mail. The Independent cites the globe:

There are no working mosques – they have been turned into cafes or museums or closed entirely – and the landmark yellow-tiled Id Kah Mosque stands as a lonely monument to the re-education campaign. The Post reporter who visited the mosque on a day its doors were opened for tourists had to register her passport number to be allowed in and was then accompanied through the courtyard, empty but for banks of facial recognition cameras and the smell of bleach. The prayer hall was locked; a guide told one reporter that prayers were at 6am and 2pm – times that did not adhere to the Islamic schedule – and another reporter that they had been cancelled because of the coronavirus.

This is not nearly sufficient for us to categorically state that the mosque is just a tourist attraction, and from what the newspaper has written it's difficult to even ascertain what is going on - whether the mosque has prayers at irregular hours, or has no prayers during the pandemic, or is forever closed to worshippers (something the imam contests). In any event, you've just broken the 3RR revert rule with these edits:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]

Please self-revert - I think you've been around long enough not to cross the bright line. -Darouet (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That fourth diff isnt related to the other three. Your preferred version is live, there is nothing to revert. Xinhua is nor a reliable source in this situation, do you have any reliable sources which have reported on the mosque being a functional working mosque? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

In your last edit, you reverted to remove statements by the mosque's imam, Memet Jume, and that breaks the 3RR rule. Just because the statement was contested a couple days ago doesn't mean that removing it now no longer counts as a revert.

I wanted to add that you've also added material from a different source - The Art Newspaper - into a different part of the article, and that looks great. That's not a revert so far as I can tell and I appreciate your taking the time to find the content. -Darouet (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

How does that break 3rr? Its not related to the other reverts (its not even a revert). You’ve been here long enough to know what WP:3RR is, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

And this is a 5th revert [7], made after I asked you to self-revert, following your breaking of 3RR.

Both the fourth and fifth edits are reverts because the material was recently added (a few days ago), and you've reverted those additions. -Darouet (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I’m confused, you said "That's not a revert so far as I can tell” and now you’re saying it was a revert? I replaced an unreliable source with a reliable source and removed a statement in breach of WP:BLP (a WP:3RR exception even if it was a revert). You have no standing here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I see: you believe that your removal of statements by Memet Jume allow the 4th and 5th reverts because they fall under a WP:BLP exemption. As I've explained at Talk:Id Kah Mosque, as WP:CRYBLP clearly explains:

While the biographies of living persons policy includes a few exceptional editing powers that have been granted to prevent or reduce harm to living persons, these can be abused as some sort of trump card to give an advantage to one side in an editing dispute.

This is edit warring, pure and simple, sorry Horse Eye. I asked you to please not cross the 3RR bright line, and you've doubled down. -Darouet (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I did no such thing, I have not edited that page since you posted on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Also if we’re consulting essays rather than actual policies might I suggest WP:CRYCRYBLP? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Horse Eye's Back, I've made a 3RR report here [8]. -Darouet (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion notice

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:North–South_divide_in_Taiwan#Not_a_link? are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. The more specific reminder, please see {{Off topic warning}} Loaded Question? (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I probably ought to just start indef blocking all red-linked accounts that post templated warnings to this talk page, with no warnings and no noticeboards and no SPI. Seems like you'd at least try to not look like a returning sock of a banned user. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The irony here is that if I hadn’t been forced to pour over the page history in excruciating detail I would never have noticed thats its almost entirely the creation of a single banned user and their socks or how flimsily/misleadingly sourced much of it is. Now its either WP:TNT or thorough cleanup, but either way its gonna make them a lot more unhappy than if they had just let a few small changes to their magnum opus ride. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Alexandermcnab

What is wrong with that AlexanderMcNab guy?He has reverted a lot stuff. Thanks for helping me out.103.246.36.31 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Elecpro RU series

Hi HB, could you look at Elecpro RU series? It's quite a mess, and some of the English is atrocious. I've done what I can for now, but it needs attention from someone familiar with Chinese languages. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that is ROUGH... I’m not seeing anything in terms of contemporary coverage. Wish I could help more but it just might not be notable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Better template to request citations

Hi HE. I suggest {{more citations needed}} for things like this and this. Invasive Spices (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems our judgment differs in this area, but of course you already knew that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Redlinks

Feel free to remove all those redlinks. NOT, RS, ONUS & BURDEN are all policies, while REDLINK is a guideline. - wolf 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Azov Battalion (review before posting)

Good afternoon, I'd like to start an RfC about determining the status of the Azov Battalion and what how to describe their links to/descriptions as a neo-Nazi group. I would like you to share your opinion on the format, correctness and content of the questions before I start the RfC.The draft is here. Thank you in advance for your participation. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Will do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Good evening, I would like to notify you that the RfC on the topic has just started. It is located here Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)