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

Impasse

Hey I know we haven't seen eye to eye on things lately, but I hope you can tell that we US editors at least try to provide citations. Whether or not they're RSs or not is still an ongoing discussion. Let's not get into that here.

Where I'm going with this is that there are other road articles here that even we don't know what to do with them or we don't have the energy to take to afd. Take your pick here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PrefixIndex?prefix=Jalan&namespace=0&hideredirects=1 –Fredddie™ 22:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I completely respect you guys and USA+UK roads articles do seem to be by far the best curated so both groups should be commended for that. As far as I can tell these issues started in the paleo days and are so beyond any single person that it would be silly to sit around and play the blame game. In the grand scheme of things google maps etc aren't the worst thing thats been used since Sanger stalked these halls, if you want a good laugh check out navysite.de which is/was foundational for a not of ships and milhist articles and Catholic.org which was foundational for a lot of catholic ones. Disagreeing over maps from real sources just isn't the same sort of issue, I'm cool with you guys regardless of how it shakes out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid that your actions and some of your other words do not match your words here. Quite frankly I have better things to do with my free time than to sit around and be attacked over and over by multiple editors for the past few days, and to have the last 17 years of work relitigated over and over with some pedantic definitions of words and policies. (Never mind that I have done extensive work at WP:SPI, ArbCom, and on other wikis). More than profanity, that is the real incivility. --Rschen7754 22:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally on wikipedia the oldest work and newest is the most likely to not match our sourcing standards. We do a good job looking after the newest but a pretty bad job looking after the oldest. I'd suggest you go with the flow, this isn't the hill you want to die on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

So we go around and treat editors like they are not people? --Rschen7754 23:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

We are people. We are not our edits. You can't be attached to your work here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

My last reply... I think that continuing to go about things, the way that you are, that you will win simply because nobody will want to work with you. Is that what you want? It has taken 17-20 years to get ~1000 articles completely written and sourced - what makes you think that we can do the other 29,000 in 17-20 days? So then the solution is to throw away everything (might as well do it by bot) that isn't sourced? That is not a responsible solution and they don't even do that at WP:CCI. Not to mention that your interpretation of standards is well above the bar of WP:GA and WP:FA.

I like to think that when the "committed" road editors edit, they are doing their best - remember this is not a job, and most of us have commitments outside Wikipedia. Though I suspect that a lot of people would not put up with some of the recent treatment we have experienced at their paid jobs either. --Rschen7754 23:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Ooooffff, thats where this gets hard... Many of those ~1,000 aren't actually completely written and sourced. In terms of how rough this is for committed road editors its going to get a lot worse before it gets better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Editing the Feldenkrais Method Article

Hello User talk:Horse Eye's Back. You recently edited the Feldenkrais Method Article. Hopefully you will engage about the need to improve the Feldenkrais Method Article and establish a Neutral Point of View consistent with Wikipedia policy.

I will in the coming weeks be inviting editors to my Sandbox and related talk page for consideration and discussion of needed changes. User:Bbachrac/sandbox Since you are a very experienced editor, I hope you will contribute to either making the article NPOV or having it removed.

In the mean time, please review this National Institute of Health article Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name?

I would also value your opinion on Wikipedia Articles appropriating and redefining Service Marked terms and applying defamatory and pejorative terminology while ignoring reliable sources but claiming there are none. As early as 2015 there were peer reviewed review articles concerning the effectiveness of the teaching practice. Meanwhile Dr. David Gorski blog opinion comments are given prominence. Why is not reference to Dr. Norman Doidge M.D accepted

The Feldenkrais Method^SM is complementary to Physical Therapy and many licensed Physical Therapist are Guild trained and incorporate the method into their practice. That would seem to establish that using the term "Fringe" is not appropriate.

In his 2015 book, The Brain's Way of Healing[i], Norman Doidge, M.D. devotes two chapters to the Feldenkrais Method which provides a good overview and reliable references. As an MD, he provides a useful list of 11 Core Principles of the Method as he understands it from Feldenkrais’ writings and related references.  Doidge writes, “most conventional treatments assume the function is wholly dependent on the ‘underlying’ bodily structure and its limitations”

(Doidge, 2015. p. 177). The field of neuroplasticity is now under active investigation and development.

Thank you for your consideration Bbachrac (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

[i] Doidge writes, “most conventional treatments assume the function is wholly dependent on the ‘underlying’ bodily structure and its limitations” (Doidge, 2015. p. 177).

1. The mind programs the functioning of the brain.

Feldenkrais wrote, "The mind gradually develops and begins to program the functioning of the brain. My way of looking at the mind and body involves a subtle method of 'rewiring' the structure of the whole human being to be functionally well integrated, which means being able to do what the individual wants. Each individual has the choice to wire himself in a special way" (Feldenkrais cited in Doidge, 2015, p. 159)

2. A brain cannot think without motor function.

Doidge writes, "People may believe they can have a pure thought, but in a deeply relaxed state, Feldenkrais pointed out, they will observe every thought leads to a change in their muscles" (Doidge, 2015, p. 170)

3. Awareness of movement is the key to improving movement.

Doidge writes, "The sensory system, [as] Feldenkrais pointed out, is intimately related to the movement system, not separate from it. Sensation's purpose is to orient, guide, help, control, coordinate, and assess the success of a movement." Improvement in our action does not always have to be conscious - in fact much of the learning in Feldenkrais lessons is not. However, experience with the Feldenkrais Method, now backed up by research into neuroplasticity, shows "that long-term neuroplastic change occurs most readily when a person or an animal pays close attention while learning" (Doidge, 2015, 170).

4. Differentiation - making the smallest possible sensory distinctions between movements - builds brain maps.

Doidge writes, "By making finely tuned - differentiated - movements of these parts and paying close attention while doing so, people experience them subjectively as becoming larger; they take up more of their mental maps, and that can lead to more refined brain maps". (Doidge, 2015, 171).

5. Differentiation is easiest when the stimulus is the smallest.

Doidge notes, "Many movement problems arise because areas of the body are not well represented in the brain maps". (Doidge, 2015, 172).

6. Slowness of movement is the key to awareness, and awareness is the key to learning.

Awareness is a key to learning: "slower movement leads to more subtle observation and map differentiation, so that more change is possible". (Doidge, 2015, 173).

7. Reduce the effort whenever possible.  The use of force is the opposite of awareness; learning does not take place when we are straining. (Doidge, 2015, 173).

8. Errors are essential, and there is no right way to move, only better ways.

9. Random movements provide variation that leads to developmental breakthroughs.

Children learn to roll over, crawl, sit and walk through experimentation.  Learning to stand and walk are momentous breakthroughs that infants make without training.  They learn by trial and error, when they are ready .

10. Even the smallest movement in one part of the body involves the entire body.

In a person who is capable of effective, graceful, efficient movement, the entire body organizes itself, as a whole, to do the movement, no matter how small.  Feldenkrais learned from Kano the founder of Judo that “in the correct act there is no muscle of the body which is contracted with greater intensity than the rest…The sensation is of effortless action”

11. Many movement problems, and the pain that goes with them, are caused by learned habit, not be abnormal structure. Bbachrac (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Horse Eye's Back. You have new messages at UtherSRG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

UtherSRG (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Kosovo shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A single revert does not an edit war make... On the issue: You can't use an opinion piece to source a significant fact in a national infobox. Don't even try, its not gonna work in the long run because you'l never be able to get consensus for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The article has a one revert policy in a 24 hour period. Your decision to not engage is not helpful as any major changes require a talk page discussion the artile. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how am I not engaging? Do you genuinely believe that the source is reliable for that information or have I stepped on some sort of Balkan landmine? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

AfD notifications

Just so you know, it's generally good practice to notify the author of an article when you nominate it for deletion, especially if it was recently created, so they are aware of the discussion. {{Afd notice}} is generally used for this purpose. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Can a Good Article be sourced to only maps?

You've been on a kick recently with looking at road related articles with a critical eye. What are your thoughts on M-212 (Michigan highway). Is it possible to create a Good Article based only on maps? Is it even a notable road? -Eóin (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Well its not today... But in 2009 when that article was made GA there were basically no rules. I would suggest looking for significant secondary coverage in WP:RS and if you can find it going the Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/editing route and if not the AfD route. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I had a quick look. It's not entirely cited to maps; there are two snippets of trivia pages from local radio stations, which are probably semi-reliable. I've also copyedited the prose which needed a bit of work, including "The highway was designated in order to provide access", "M-212 even beats out Michigan's shortest signed business route" (Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a sports ticker), "north of the entrance to Aloha State Park in the community of Aloha" (to paraphrase WP:DUH, if Aloha State Park were in Podunk, Nebraska, that would be worth mentioning), "To the north of the highway, there is all woodlands and residences. To the south, there are just a few residences." (so is the cycle route from my house to the station but we don't have an Wikipedia article on that) and I don't know what "Since gaining the superlative" means.

I presume the sources presented in the article are all that's available to get the 2K of prose thus presented, and so therefore by definition the article probably meets the "broad in coverage" and "focused" part of the criteria. Anyway, I guess it technically meets the qualifications to GA, but probably not the spirit. Do we need an article on this? Well, looking at page views, it gets about 3 hits per day. Compare and contrast with South Circular Road, London which gets 50, and M25 motorway which gets over 400. So probably not. I've previously brought the issue of uber-short GAs up at WT:GAN and elsewhere; for example I'm currently vexed about Pimlico tube station - it just isn't long enough to be GA worthy but I'm stuck for finding any more sources, even after going through 3-4 books.

Anyway, if you want to send the article to AfD or reassess it at GAN, then feel free to do so. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Nowhere in the GAC does it say a Good Article needs to be a good article. (please laugh) –Fredddie™ 20:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Jeffrey Sachs

Hi Horse Eye's Back. Our discussion at Talk:Jeffrey Sachs, isn't going anywhere, and I'm having a very difficult time seeing how your responses are made in good faith to improve the article. Asking the same question or similar questions over and over isn't helpful, rather it's disruptive.[1][2][3][4]

You don't see how WP:RECENTISM applies to something that happened on October 2? You don't see how WP:NOTNEWS applies to speculation from a non-expert? You don't see how WP:UNDUE applies to something that's getting almost no coverage from reliable sources? You don't see how WP:FRINGE applies to someone who has a history of making fringe claims, speculating about something he has no expertise in, echoing Russian propaganda? --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You're not being asked why they apply, you're being asked what parts apply to which bits of the text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You've lost me, which might be an improvement. Can you be more specific? What do you think the policy concerns might apply to? Current content? Removed content? Both? --Hipal (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

You've objected to both, not? Not a discussion for my talk page BTW. Please consider disengaging instead of escalating in the future when a discussion isn't going anywhere, most likely more editors will come along and move the discussion along. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think the remaining content is questionable for the reasons I've given, the removed content over the line. I wouldn't object to to the current content being removed completely. Thanks for clarifying the situation. --Hipal (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Libby Locke

The article Libby Locke has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ANYBIO, requires significant coverage (not merely a series of mentions in passing) in multiple independent reliable secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi

I have been asked to coordinate discussion of the issue of the reliability as a source as Pellumb Xhufi. You are one of the editors who has either used Xhufi as a source or expressed a concern about the use of Xhufi as a source. The place for the discussion is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi. Your participation is not required but is encouraged, and may be the best way to have your opinion considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Road edits

Please stop with the mass tagging of road articles for notability and sourcing issues. State highways are notable enough for their own articles. Also, please stop tagging sources in the route description that support the information as “failing verification” as that is not true. Also, please stop tagging major intersections tables as needing more sources when the sources present are fine. Your mass tagging is going against the standards road articles have followed for years and it’s getting exhausting having to clean up your tags. Dough4872 18:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you considered that perhaps its the standards road articles have followed for years which are out of order and not my edits which conform with our core policies and guidelines? It can't be that tiresome, you haven't contributed to any of the dozen plus talk page discussions I've opened following your reverts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

We don’t need discussions all over the place, that’s why I posted here. I would not call the standards road articles follow “out of order” as we have Featured Articles that follow those standards. Maps are not primary sources but are rather a secondary source, the raw GIS data used to make the map is the primary source. Also, DOT sources are considered first-hand sources and not a primary source. The map sources in road articles can be used to verify the information in the route description. The SLD/route log sources are sufficient enough in the Major intersections table to verify a junction with a road exists at a location at that milepost. Your interpretation of the sources seems to be the issue here as it goes against what has been widely accepted for a well-written road article. Dough4872 18:26, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

You actually should have a WP:V, WP:Reliability, or WP:Notability discussion on the talk page for that article. First hand sources are primary sources. You're also doing stuff not covered by any of that like restoring citations to the fansite alpsroads.net/ and removing notability tags and then refusing to name reliable sources which support their notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you thoroughly review WikiProject U.S. Roads before doing any further road edits. Famartin (talk) 07:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would I review a WikiProject homepage? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You are routinely violating established policies. If you have no interest in established policies, then why would we respect anything you do? Are you trying to prove you really are just a troll? Famartin (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There are no established policies to be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You can’t read. That’s fine tho. I’ll help Dough out from now on. Famartin (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you name even a single one of these long established policies which I'm supposedly violating? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Question

Regarding [5], was 410 references not enough? I have no skin in that game, but it did make me laugh. –Fredddie™ 00:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You understand that tag isn't about the number of source but the existence of unsourced material on the page... Right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

On an article with that many refs, a little specificity is nice. Some people need a picture drawn for them. –Fredddie™ 00:38, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally the way this works is that if you'd be adding more than 6 cn tags you should tag the section instead and if its more than one section you should tag the whole page. If I had thrown a bunch of cn tags around someone else would be on my talk page talking about WP:TAGBOMB (not rhetorical either, see my archives for at least two examples of it). If it were up to me I actually would tag at the lowest level possible, community consensus is not to do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk pages exist, too. That way you can talk at length first and then place the tag before the horde gets bent out of shape. –Fredddie™ 01:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thats an odd order, I've never had anyone suggest talk before tag before. The problem is not that the horde gets bent out of shape, its that it exists in the first place. The solution is to destroy the horde, not to bow to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Case

Now that things have quieted down a bit, I have a question about something you poste on my talk. I had only reviewed the last 2,000 of UtherSRG's edits so I was unaware that they had recently returned, that does change the context immensely. I must note that within their last 2,000 edits I was able to put together a clear noticeboard case for a ban from closing discussions with a slightly less strong case for a lack of competence. Obviously I won't be moving forward with that. In an effort of self-improvement, I'd like to know more about what you found. How many of those last 2000 were bad? What's a reasonable number of mistakes and what's unreasonable? And surely number isn't everything; magnitude of mistakes is probably more important, yes? And any common patterns in there that wasn't already covered on my talk? I ask also in part because you've been quoted out of context and I wonder if I'll need to defend my a-bit. Thanks in advance! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I don't think theres anything that hasn't been addressed, it was mostly the poor talk page closes and a general lack of civility and understanding of modern best practices. If this makes sense your edits looked like you'd just stepped out of a time warp... Which would be wholly unacceptable except for the fact that in a way you had, in context its much more understandable and a clear cut case does not exist (as paradoxical as it sounds to apply to an admin I actually think WP:BITE applies both for brand new editors and editors back from extended wikivacations). Im terms of magnitude of mistakes the number is small. If I'm quoted out of context you can reply that the comment was made be an editor who did not at the time have a full understanding of the context. What matters to me now is that you're making sincere (and apparently rapid) progress in bringing your AdminFu up to modern best practices. Best of luck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:46, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! And yeah, time warp is a good description. While I'd done some editing along the way, I hadn't looked at admin things more than a here-and-there bit in that time. (Scribbles notes next to !bold_admin .... hand_hold more...) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

nableezy - 15:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

See here. nableezy - 15:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You are disruptive

If you are interested in helping Wikipedia, then you can try to source material you think is unsourced... just because its not sourced doesn't mean its not true. You have the option of trying to be helpful. Removing information which is verifiable, but which you refuse to try to verify, is not encylopedic... its disruptive. Famartin (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I could not find a source which could verify that information, it appeared to be OR on a granular level below which there are published reliable sources. If you know where every single iota of text can be verified you are more than welcome to either name the sources or add them yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not a major contributor of road article content... I mostly just photograph them. So, I'm not someone you should ask. However, I have been watching your behavior, and its clear your intent is more disruptive than constructive. If you truly wish to be a good editor, then you should try to learn procedures for road article citations. I don't hold much hope for that, but its the only advice I can give you. There's other advice I'd give admins at this point. Famartin (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

With all due respect you are a major road article contributor[6][7]. There are no unique procedures for road article citations which have been approved by the community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You don't actually look at my edits, do you? Famartin (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you not consider images to be part of articles? I'm having a hard time understanding your claim not to be a major contributor in your core topic space. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you now understand that there is no such thing as unique procedures for road article citations? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Barre Seid for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barre Seid 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/Barre Seid (2nd nomination) 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.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 16:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Lol, you have about as much chance of getting that page deleted as I have of becoming the hereditary leader of North Korea. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, now you are litterally stalking me

You've never done any edits to Hanover Township. So I can only surmise that you are actually just tracking my activities and decided to attack them. Bug off you pest, you're a completely unconstructive editor just trying to annoy us. Famartin (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I can warn you against adding unsourced material to a page I've never edited... What sort of an argument is that? "I'm guilty but you shouldn't have been there to catch me!" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The sourced information is within the other articles. Yeah fine I didn't add the citations directly to the pages. Sorry, but the usual purpose of edit wars on encyclopedias is information which is hard to verify or easily disputable. You are entering into edit wars and confrontations for information which is easy to find. Clearly you're a combative pest just looking for a fight. Famartin (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert your edits to Hanover Township or anywhere else. I did revert your revert of my edit at U.S. Route 422‎ but thats not at all the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

More road edits

Please stop with the mass tagging of road articles. If you have an issue with the sourcing the Major intersections table, I would suggest starting a discussion at WT:USRD about the issues. Dough4872 16:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Why would I stop adding valid tags to pages that need them? Sourcing questions can be addressed at WP:RSN if you have them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Thousands of road articles are set up the same way with the major intersections table. The source for the mileage is enough to verify a junction is at that location at that milepost. Dough4872 16:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like you lack a community consensus for that and need to go to RSN. If not point me to the community consensus and we can move on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around, usually community consensus is used to change the status quo. --Rschen7754 00:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

The status quo is WP:V, you're going to need a community consensus to change it. If we have a consensus that says "WP:V applies except in the Major intersections table of road articles" it has yet to be presented. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate how the vast majority of the content you are removing is against WP:V. --Rschen7754 01:03, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Very rarely am I removing content... And as you know the burden to demonstrate V lies with the person who adds or restores the text, not the person who removes it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:DRIVEBY literally applies so well here... Elizium23 (talk) 06:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does... "By contrast, adding tags for obvious, major flaws can be helpful." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Fansites

Your assertion about fansites is false. It is better to keep them as a source than to replace them with a {{citation needed}} tag. Tags like {{better source needed}} exist for a reason; if the content in an article is sourced to a fansite, removing that source only harms our readers and future editors as it makes it harder for them to figure out where the information actually came from. This is especially true in this case, where we have the template {{okhighways}} specifically for referencing that fansite. Said template should be nominated for deletion before mass-removal, not after. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

No... Its better to remove the fannsite. Why the heck do we have a template for referencing a fansite? Thank you bringing that to the community's attention, it will not be allowed to persist. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's really not. While this source isn't listed at WP:RSP, it would likely be classified as "no consensus" or "generally unreliable", neither of which justify widespread removal of the source with no replacement. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally unreliable does in fact justify widespread removal... Not sure how a non-expert SPS can be "no consensus" unless one of those two things (non-expert and SPS) isn't true. The problem with fansites isn't removing them its adding them... Whoever added this fansite was being disruptive even if unintentionally. You shouldn't add unsourced or poorly sourced stuff to wikipedia, thats one of our most basic rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Replacing the actual source of the information with a {{citation needed}} tag does not improve the article for anyone. And yes of course adding poorly-sourced content to Wikipedia is not a good thing, but replacing a low-quality-but-probably-correct source with no source at all is not an improvement either. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're saying that you want me to remove both the source and the content cited to it? Thats an option which unambiguously improves the project but its a little extreme for me in most cases. Can you link me to where you've discussed disruptively adding fansites on someones talk page? Obviously you've done that repeatedly, right? You aren't just beating on the person cleaning up the mess you're also going to speak to the individuals who made the mess, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The site was added in... 2007. Not exactly gonna go after someone for making an edit over a decade ago. Your "cleaning up the mess" is not an improvement here, because you again refuse to start an RfC to see if the consensus is still that state highways are generally notable, and instead pretend that that consensus just doesn't exist and go after the articles one-by-one. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Jin Boyang

I have given citations. If you don't agree with them, why don't you at least discuss on the talk page? You've removed multiple sourced comments yet again. Stop doing it, or take it to dispute resolution.

You're removing material without discussing even though the policy for BLP is to do that only for contentious material. Can you explain which of the things you've removed is contentious?

"and won his first senior international gold medal at an ISU Championship." and "At the 2018 World Championships, he placed fourth in the short program but dropped to nineteenth overall after ranking twenty-third in the free skate." are literal facts as shown in the page. I see you've not edited skating wikipedia pages before either. If you don't understand what's happening, why don't you at least read some of the skating profiles? I even put the concerns in the skater's talk page.

Here are comments on how content disputes are to be resolved. Please follow them. "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. For example, if an article appears biased, add balancing material or make the wording more neutral. Include citations for any material you add. If you do not know how to fix a problem, ask for help on the talk page." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Resolving_content_disputes

You're also incorrect that I "need an inline citation" to put things like his program selection and coaching changes, ignoring that I already did link an archive of his biography for all the factual claims (which you deleted, even though every other claim about his skating and every other skater's skating comes from their biographies). You even deleted section for his future competition results which are yet again included in the biography that you deleted for no reason in the first place. Here are the instructions for inline citations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Inline_citation

The interviews and Xinhua net citations need to be justified as poor, and that's before we get to why you didn't improve those citations and outright deleted them without following BLP policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor120918756 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone's mom's posts on facebook aren't a WP:RS... Per 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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"Someone's mom's posts on facebook" isn't what happened - those are archives of his interviews, coming from his official fanpage on weibo who posted the translation on twitter. It's the only way I could cite a translation of the interview. If you want me to cite an untranslated version, go ahead and ask for it, but then you need to make sure you don't delete the translation I do put on wikipedia. You also need to justify why you removed Xinhua net for one of his achievements, or the current archive of his biography which contains his coaching change and programs as well as his upcoming competitions, and put them all under how I "need an inline citation" to put that back in, or how his actual results themselves are unsourced when they are part of his ISU biography, and why you deleted one of the pictures under "need an inline citation to put it back in". https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jin_Boyang&diff=1117537501&oldid=1117537305 This comment is also not "unsourced" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jin_Boyang&diff=1117537089&oldid=1117533289. Yet again this is part of the results table that's been written on the page, a comparison between his 2016 and 2017 worlds scores. Editor120918756 (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xinhua is not a high-quality source, as such it can't be used for BLP (I thought this was adequately explained above). If they are part of his ISU biography then they should be sourced to it. If something is "coming from his official fanpage on weibo who posted the translation on twitter." its probably not WP:DUE, generally we only cover things which get secondary coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xinhua net is a news article about his achievement. You need to read what's written in the article as well as what the sentence that you keep deleting is actually saying before deciding it's not "high quality", when all it's doing is affirming the achievement. The ISU biography HAS been cited multiple times within the article as well as within the results sections, sometimes even within the paragraph that you delete the sentence from. It was also cited with the coaching change, the upcoming competitions, as well as with the program selection of the season, all of which you deleted, as well as the actual citation itself. You deleted a giant chunk including even a picture. For the third part, if you want, we can seek a third opinion, but it's an interview. Again, do you want the untranslated version? Then I can find that and put that in. But when you yourself aren't sure about whether or not it's "probably" WP:DUE, why not at least visit the talk page before deleting? Editor120918756 (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xinhua itself is low quality, we have a consensus on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I have found this article to source some of the comments that you find "unreliable". Is it okay with you? https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202205/10/WS62799c27a310fd2b29e5b8bf.html "As China's top male singles figure skater, Jin made his Olympic debut at the Pyeongchang Winter Games in 2018 when he finished fourth－to this day, China's best result in men's singles at the Olympics." China Daily has been used before in the article. Contains information for a section of 2022-23 as well. For the skating technique commentary that you'd previously removed, I found this article as well https://www.scmp.com/sport/china/article/3165817/winter-olympics-meet-chinas-beijing-2022-figure-skating-big-guns If you disagree, then maybe we can seek a third opinion, but I'd rather you discussed this on the article's Talk page. Editor120918756 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

China Daily can not be used for BLP. SCMP can be. I agree you should be discussing this on the article's talk page, my talk page is not the appropriate venue yet you insist on placing rants here... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do come to the talk page next time then, instead of deleting giant chunks of sourced material as "unsourced". Editor120918756 (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Again... Per WP:BLP "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." We are literally required to delete it on sight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Right, so we have discussed the reliable sources enough, and I will keep it in mind. However, please do look at the diff I'd given you https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jin_Boyang&diff=1117537501&oldid=1117537305. It wasn't just "unsourced" material you'd removed. As I kept saying, you removed the coaching change, the programs, the upcoming competitions, none of which were unsourced - and I'd very much placed the ISU biography next to these, which you also removed as a source. If you'd not removed this huge chunk, I'd not have been as confused. But thanks for the discussion, I've been finding more third party sources, so there shouldn't be a problem with this page anymore. Editor120918756 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

For BLP purposes we treat "unsourced" and "poorly sourced" the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And yet, somehow, the biographies being used as sources for program selections, coaching changes, and future competitions haven't been deleted for the rest of his skating nor on any other skater's pages...? You going to start deleting those as "unsourced"? Because I'd love to see you try. Either way, we've discussed it enough here. If you do it again, we will discuss again. I have a lot of time. Editor120918756 (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you know of other poorly sourced BLP content point it out to me and I will remove it immediate and without waiting for discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, the ISU biography are the way you come to know what the skater's program selection, upcoming competitions, and coaching changes are, officially, every season. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Chen#Programs, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriella_Papadakis#Programs. If you didn't know this, you could have checked other skater pages, and further, just asked in the Talk page. You are free to go to these pages and remove those, but don't be shocked if they get reverted. Editor120918756 (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You appear to misunderstand. Reviewing the edits ISU was removed as collateral damage from intervening edits, feel free to add it back in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Just as a polite suggestion, I would like you to consider removing just the unsourced material next time. It would be less confusing. But, as I said, there shouldn't be a problem anymore, since I've found third party sources for this athlete. Editor120918756 (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, its a problem with how the "undue" function bundles edits and gets especially problematic when people are undoing bundled undoes with intervening edits... Wish it were less confusing but we work with the tools we have until we get better ones. Thank you for tracking down good sources! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Churchofjesuschristtemples.org as unreliable source

I noticed that you removed references to https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/ from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in England. You wrote that it is not a reliable source. It does appear to be a passion project from one person, so I'm fine with removing it. But you only removed the citations and not the information that comes from them. This damages text-source integrity. I think it would make more sense to replace the removed citations with a citation needed tag, or to completely remove the information that comes from those sources. I have removed the information. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally removing the information is considered to be a more extreme step than simply removing an unreliable source. Text-source integrity is only relevant when there is a reliable source which was not the case here, do you understand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's not a RS, which is why I removed the information that came from it. The text-source integrity is impacted when you remove a source but leave the information. Let me show you an example that explains what I'm talking about:

England has 36 of the 45 stakes, five missions, and both temples in the United Kingdom.

When you removed the churchofjesuschristtemples.org in-sentence references (numbers 1 and 2 here), it made it look like all of the information could be sourced to the "newsroom" source. That is not the case, which is why I removed the information (otherwise if I came back two years later or something, I would think the information is sourced). If you had replaced the citations with a citation needed tag, we could have kept track of the fact that the information is uncited. Is this making sense to you? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you review my edits that is what I generally do, it appears to have been an oversight. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

References

RS noticeboard

May you please comment here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Association_of_Religion_Data_Archives_and_World_Religion_Database Foorgood (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)