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

you deleted my edit without context

My edit was perfectly reasonable. Why can't the Matt Walsh page be unbiased? Colejohanson12 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Colejohanson12: On the contrary, Cole, your edit was incorrect. You are misunderstanding the term "neutral" in NPOV. Please read our policy at WP:NPOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

How am I misunderstanding the term "neutral"? All I did was remove the baseless accusation of Matt being "far right" and edit out the bias of the controversy section. Colejohanson12 (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

A request

Hey, I don't know you, but we kind of crossed paths recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Sources. Anyway I noticed that you're getting pretty aggressive over at User talk:Rachel Helps (BYU). I think I understand what your concern is because the first time I saw her editing articles I had some red flags go up from the "(BYU)" in her username. Then I looked at the substance of her edits, read the declarations on her user page, and educated myself on what a Wikipedian in residence is. Over the years I've come to respect her as one of the most helpful editors in the LDS topic area. She's very careful about NPOV and rarely if ever makes contentious edits or takes a strong position on anything. She always defers to whatever consensus there is and gravitates toward more "gnomish" work like maintaining citations. If you're worried about Mormon editors going around editing LDS articles to reflect their POV, I've seen plenty of those come and go over the decade or so I've been editing. Rachel Helps is not one of them, and she doesn't deserve to be hounded about COI editing. ~Awilley (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

What specifically have you learned about Wikipedians in residence? From my understanding they are not a discrete class of editors and have the exact same COI restrictions as the rest of us. My issue isn't with her religion, it just so happens that her religion is also her employer. I understand that the LDS space has lower standards than much of Wikipedia because of the low quality of editor, but that doesn't excuse COI editing (no matter how helpful or gnomish). Also note that an editor who was very careful about NPOV wouldn't have used this source [1] for a BLP, an editor who was competent in navigating COI issues would never have edited Gary P. Gillum at all (Gillum spent most of their career working at the BYU library where Rachel Helps BYU also works and she has continued much of his research work particularly into Hugh Nibley). There are legitimate issues here and they don't go away just because you like them or they're a net positive for the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedians in residence are not a "discrete class of editors", but they do tend to have access to a lot of special collections held by the institute at which they are "in residence". Additionally, the "LDS space" (as you call it) does not have "lower standards than much of Wikipedia because of the low quality of editor". It has the exact same standards as the rest of Wikipedia, meaning that all edits must abide by the policies and guidelines here. As Awilley pointed out, Rachel is very careful about how she edits (I've followed her editing for many years now), and she is very open to correcting any missteps she may take (which are very few and far between).

Your behavior toward Rachel has been extremely antagonistic over the last few months. Unless you can point to specific instances where she made bad edits, you need to back off and stop your harassment. Consider this a formal warning about your behavior. Please work on assuming good faith on the part of Rachel's edits in the future. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nihonjoe: please stop harassing me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion

Wikipedia:Third opinion. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I have received a third opinion at: Wikipedia:Help desk. Section title: Copyright of a modified image. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:24BF:BDDB:DBE3:4388 (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You might be right. After receiving replies at Wikipedia:Help desk and Commons:Village pump/copyright both sections titled: "Copyright of a modified image," it looks like you are probably right. Also Commons:Derivative works might support this as well. Apparently there is no clear line when creative works on a copyrighted image means that the modified image gets a new copyright.

I apologize. I should have read all of these guidelines and policies before I added those images to that page. You are also right to call me incompetent at identifying copyrighted work. I clearly am. I don't think I will be editing on WP much longer. Have a good day and may God richly bless you. 2600:6C54:7E00:C2:C44C:93D9:8E2E:D9F8 (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

recent edit undo on a talk page

Hi, I totally respect your decision to undo that edit I made, but I do wonder if there is any guidance on the topic of sort like... purpose of talk pages inside article. It wasn't, after all, an edit of the actual article itself, but rather was on the page dedicated to discussion about the topic of the article. I normally would wholly agree that such a question is not appropriate for the talk page, but I think it's an extremely reasonable presumption to make that the actors responsible for committing the acts described in the article likely frequent and possibly even participate in editing of the wikipedia article that outline and comprehensively list their own exploits. Just curious if I could invite you to reconsider, or on the flip side, if there is one of those guidance articles about the topic and purpose of talk pages, if this question has been previously raised and settled on wikipedia.

-Laced 96.41.90.174 (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, would me being logged into my account, rather than an unregistered IP, have made a difference? (I have a small, infrequent-but-rational, history of making a few edits here or there, which i think at least demonstrates my appreciation of the mechanisms of wikipedia. I mention this only because I did put some thought and deliberation into whether i should or shouldn't have added it to the talk page at all. -Laced8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Laced8 96.41.90.174 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

recent comments on Joseph Smith talk page

Hello Horse's Eye Buck. I have explained my edits to you and invited you to open a case at COIN if there are issues with the neutrality of my edits. You have not done so. You have persisted in arguing that my edits are tainted by my employment on the proposed FA candidacy of the Joseph Smith page. This is starting to feel like a personal attack. Please stop. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rachel Helps (BYU): Your edits are tainted by your employment, that's what a COI is. The taint to such edits is one reason that COI editors (such a yourself) "are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly". You have disclosed a COI, yes? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have a disclosed COI. This does not mean that all of my edits on LDS topics are automatically questionable. It means that other people should be aware of my COI and still base their judgements of my edits based on the content of those edits. The page on personal attack defines it as "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Is there a problem you have with the content of my edits? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I was not the one who raised the issue of your COI on that talk page, that was someone else[2]... I merely responded somewhere down the line and did not take the positions you appear to object to. I suggest that you take up those concerns with the editor who raised them. I am not saying that your edits on LDS topics are automatically questionable, they are however automatically tainted by your COI and that is unavoidable and unambiguous. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2022 (UTC)