User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2022/August

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	It's edits like this that make me love Wikipedia. StAnselm (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

On the other hand, it looks like you made this edit after looking at my contributions. Note that tracking other users' edits "should always be done with care, and with good cause". StAnselm (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Please note that you don't need to add a source to decline a speedy deletion [1], you can just do it by clicking on the icon in the middle of the speedy deletion box. The tag had nothing to do with your contribution, it had everything to do with a search I conducted failing to come up with any significant coverage of InFaith in WP:RS and searches for its previous names also turned up only passing mentions as well as the purely promotional nature of the page prior to your most recent addition. Note that I will be tagging the page for notability as GNG is still undemonstrated, but I don't plan on nominating it for deletion anytime soon (how long is long enough to leave a notability tag undressed before formal deletion proceedings is context dependent but in my opinion is almost always measured in *years* not days or months). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, it's totally notable - it has an entry in the Encyclopedia of Christianity in the United States.[2] StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries do not generally contribute to notability, consensus is that they're equivalent to a passing mention. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you point me to a page that explains that? StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I can not off the top of my head. What are the other two sources you think satisfies GNG along with the encyclopedia entry? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tagging notability on state reps

Hello. I noticed you tagged Andrew Murr for notability concerns. Murr is an elected member of the Texas House of Representatives. People who serve in state legislatures are assumed to be notable per WP:NPOL. There is no need to tag such articles. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 17:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

As the page page notes "This is a secondary criterion. People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion." So you can still nominate if you feel it doesn't fit, remember that a page can meet the notability criteria and still be found to not be notable by consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Jumping on this because I saw that you left (and then quickly removed) an odd message on my talk page about this. Just so there isn't any confusion, WP:NPOL states that The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. That means any member of a state house or senate is automatically notable under WP:NPOL. Unfortunately, sources on state legislators can be severely lacking or non-existent. Many of these pages need more sources, so feel free to tag them as such. However, their notability is not in question. I do plan on removing the tags you placed on the state legislators and would recommend avoiding that strategy in the future. If you have questions about a specific page, start a discussion on that page's talk page. If you really feel the need to nominate one of these pages to test your theory, go for it, but it would only serve as a waste of time and effort for yourself and other editors. Thanks, Novemberjazz 21:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Jason Colavito, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Stop removing this source from Wikipedia. If you want to discuss its reliability, you may do so at WP:RSN. Further disruption in this regard will be reported to administrators. jps (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jps: its a WP:BLP: "Wikipedia 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." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, you don't get to hide behind BLP here. You have been going on a systematic campaign to denigrate this person and have removed sourcing to him on what I can only surmise is a misguided personal vendetta. That's not okay. jps (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course... I also have a misguided personal vendettas against RT, CGTN, and all of the other non-WP:RS I've removed... You're letting your imagination run wild. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about those sources. I'm talking about Jason Colavito. I don't know why you decided this was your particular cause right now, but I'm telling you that you have picked a really bad tack. jps (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

You mean this Jason Colavito who is a self published non-expert? Please lay off the WP:PA, this ain't no cause. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

If you think Colavito is a "non-expert", I encourage you to take your case to WP:RSN. Having read two of his books published by, y'know, reputable publishing houses, I'm pretty sure that trying to poison the well by mentioning books he has self-published is not exactly disconfirming here. But go ahead and keep arguing. jps (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats backwards, you have to establish that they're an expert not the other way around... What books would those be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

His book on mound builders and his book on Lovecraft. I have no clue why you think he is not an "expert". Do you think it possible, for example, to get a degree in debunking Ancient Aliens? jps (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its called an archeology degree. You talked about a "misguided personal vendetta," a "particular cause," and a "systematic campaign" earlier. Have you reviewed your contributions to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? Specifically the section WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY? You were going hard about this Colavito person for days before I touched the subject and you're here attacking me? WTF dude? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The man has a degree in anthropology. Did you miss that? I take particular umbrage to those who try to exclude sources that identify the mainstream understanding of a topic from Wikipedia articles. That it happens to be a campaign by you and a few others to remove Colavito's incisive criticism of the current UFO craze just happens to be this particular time. I have no particular attraction to Colavito other than to champion his work as a reliable source. jps (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He has a split BA in anthropology and journalism, he has never published in a peer reviewed journal, held an academic position, or been awarded a graduate degree. The conspiracy you assert exists doesn't, its all in your head... There is no collusion or campaign here. On the 29th you wrote "We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue)"[3] so you were already on the warpath and I just happened to be the unlucky sap who you chose as your "venue" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to understand what weird world you think is out there where people with graduate degrees in anthropology spend their time debunking ancient aliens in academic journals? It doesn't exist. And besides, a graduate degree isn't required to see through the ruses that Colavito is investigating. That's rather the point of Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector Kit item to avoid arguments from authority. Sure, education is great. Degrees are great. But you don't need an advanced degree to identify the idiocy behind Ancient Aliens. There are no peer-reviewed journals that would accept a paper that wasted its time on showing why all that is wrong. This is a question of venue. Wikipedia, for better or worse, has decided to include certain WP:FRINGE content. This content gets discussed outside the typical academic realm. That's why WP:PARITY exists. That's why Colavito is a good source. Now, if he was being used in articles that discussed peer-reviewed literature, you might have a point. But that was none of the articles you removed him from. jps (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What don't you understand? This is not the venue for you to soliloquize about Colavito or cast aspersions. Stop. Now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

He's had a book published by an academic press. He's mentioned in Salon.com[4] as an "author whose essays have been featured at The New Republic and Slate". An article by him in Esquire (magazine)[5] Several in The New Republic. I'm sure their are more. You need to stop. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Is something in there supposed to make him a subject matter expert? The passing in mention in Salon sure doesn't do it, neither does publishing opinion essays, nor does publishing a single book from an academic press. Consensus at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard is that they're not a subject matter expert. If you want to challenge that I suggest opening a discussion at WP:RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back@ජපස where do you find that consensus? Doug Weller talk 15:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I see most people saying he isn't an expert and no compelling evidence being presented that he is. "Jason Colavito is not an expert." "I'm very skeptical of accepting anyone as an expert in "debunking" across all fields." "Self published BA in anthropology. That's hardly a self published expert." "I would agree that a BA in anthropology is a start, but it's not sufficient on its own. The WP:SPS requirements are a lot more stringent than people realize." etc. This isn't a productive discussion for my talk page, please open a discussion at RSN if you wish to continue Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

So that’s just your opinion. Like your claim that TNR’s Soapbox is an opinion piece. “ s part of the redesign, TNR launched four new editorial verticals that each feature a specialized focus and in-depth reporting: The Soapbox, on politics;” Doug Weller talk 16:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

We treat opinion and editorial the same way. Editorial pieces are opinion pieces, specifically the opinions of a specific opinion editor or columnist or the editorial board. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of sources

Without a WP:BLPREMOVE situation and when any editor can find a better source with a simple Google search, it's unhelpful that you immediately blank out passages and/or sources because you don't think they're good enough. You're more than welcome to challenge sourcing with {{better source needed}} or {{verification failed}} or similar, and even use the article's talk page to explain your rationale. There's a wide variety of ways to accomplish collaborative building of the encyclopedia. There is no WP:DEADLINE here.

For example, when there's a list of almost 20 events that have all been widely reported in the media, and many of those very reports listed multiple related events, and each and every list entry is accompanied by one or more sources, it's not helpful to blank out the only source for entries, because now they appear to be unsourced, when they were indeed cited and easily verifiable, but you didn't think it was good enough.

The very least you could do is to replace removed citations with {{citation needed}}, because that indicates that someone noticed it in the past and provides a date stamp for future editors to figure out how long ago that happened. Non-contentious information does not need to be removed unless it's also unverifiable, and you obviously are not doing any due diligence on this. Elizium23 (talk) 07:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I did replace it with CN when appropriate, the instances in which I didn't the whole page was already tagged as needing citations so it would be redundant. If you don't want poor sources removed don't add them, its as simple as that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. jps (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan part of China

Taiwan is an Inalienable Part of China @ Canp (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I will allow it, the bar on my talk page is very low these days. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just standard DS alerts I'd assumed you'd been given

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 abortion. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

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 post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. 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.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Doug Weller talk 08:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Colavito

I'm hoping that you'll add the peer reviewed journals I've mentioned. They clearly think his work is good. Doug Weller talk 10:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: where? On Talk:Jason Colavito you've mentioned two blog posts (one of which is already on the page), a Forbes Contributor, and live Science piece. If there are journals please put them on the talk page or add them to the article yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

‎A Barnstar for you!

		The Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Barnstar
		This barnstar is for your hard work, dedication, and perseverance! I hope that you will continue the good work for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 58.123.11.23 (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Dearest Comrade IP perhaps it slipped your mind but you already bestowed this honor upon me but mere months ago. While I humbly accept it perhaps you can rummage around in there and find a higher level barnstar? Two blue ones is cool, but maybe I can get a gold one next time? Or maybe a rainbow one (I do a lot of contract work for the Sinister Gay Cabal after all). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Editorial Board at The Wall Street Journal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Bill Williams 13:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)