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

September 2022

Hi Horse Eye's Back! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. - wolf 19:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: [1], that is all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring, hey.

I note your points that it wasn't done in mind of the RfC but it essentially undermines it anyway and makes this running dispute of over 5 days now and dropped a landmine in the middle of it. I too, like you have added content about the anti-monarchy responses and I want it reflected in the lead. But this doesn't help, it is Wikipedia:STONEWALLING and taking 2 steps back just as we were finally taking a step forward after a bad faithed, non-engaging editor has slowed it right down previously before this. So please can you help me out here mate and revert back to the original structure whilst the RfC goes ahead, don't kick down to redundancy as it has finally seen the light of day. Furthermore, I would note the previous unsolved points I raised in my reverts. You moved content from previous sections that better answered the Five Ws whilst these new sections in particular left previously well-categorised content with ill-defined Who? In the same way pro-monarchial tributes don't have their own section, they are instead just found in each individual section (and if anything is better for its overall weight), republican/anti-monarchy responses should instead remain in all these sections instead of making it look weaker by just trying to shoehorn it at the end of the article the same way "sport" is. We should point this out in discussion pages. So again to reiterate, the lead sections are changing whilst this RfC starts to roll in the responses in the next following days, lets's not jeopardise a lot of people's consensus building work by rejigging the article up all of a sudden. Please let me know your thoughts. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Change happens, the RfC froze a single sentence not the entire article. It is not reasonable to expect the community to take the better part of a week off from an evolving topic. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I am happy and encourage you to add further monarchial criticisms to the structure that already existed. But massively shaking the article up like this seriously undermines the current RfC as the entire first paragraph in dispute is specifically referring to the previous Political structure at the top of the page as I mentioned in the initial discussion. Changing this essentially makes this request redundant, and therefore efforts to reach consensus would be thrown out the window. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

A single section is not a massive shakeup, do not exaggerate for effect. I also haven't added a single monarchial criticism, what on earth are you smoking? I'm smoking Gorilla Glue #5 and I want some of what you've got. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes but you are taking from the other sections and redirecting it to this section you have shoehorned at the end. It is redundant. What does it add that didn't already? All it does is specifically highlight more obviously anti-monarchial sentiment that you have pulled together from previous sections but as I have previously said, this only makes its weight less because the individual content you are removing from the context of the sections it has developed around, into standalone statements with no further expansion and that don't flow into one another. In the same way that there is not a short section shoehorned at the end specifically talking about "condolences" or "tributes" because they exist in other sections already. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I made a new section without taking anything from anywhere, it was you that took from that section and shoehorned it in elsewhere. I'm beginning to think that perhaps you don't understand wikibasics like WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:REDIRECT. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Farringdon, Sunderland, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you.

May I politely recommend that it is not constructive to blank an entire section of an article (which had multiple references) simply because you do not agree with the source (There were two specific references) the primary one being a professional archaeologist survey of the area that was commissioned in regards to local construction. This report can be sent to you if you wish to review it yourself and cross check it. If you insist on your position, there is always the "citation needed" tag as a last resort. Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It had zero WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Farringdon, Sunderland, you may be blocked from editing. - Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You're using the wrong template, adequate explanation has been repeatedly given. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEPROD

Hi, Horse Eye's Back. Regarding diff, please see WP:DEPROD. Once anyone has removed a prod, the article can't be re-prodded. If you think the article should be deleted, please take it to WP:AfD instead. Cheers, gnu57 18:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: that edit was accompanied by a long edit summary which did not mention the prod at all. Their intent was not at all unclear... They had clearly not intended to remove the prod. Note that they also removed the Orphan tag so clearly in error. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Feldenkrais Method and Talk:Epistemic humility

You have shown up at two articles in my recent contrib history to argue with me. You haven't shown previous interest in either of these topics. What's up? - Palpable (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that you weren't competently identifying WP:RS so I suspected that you might have disrupted multiple pages. I was right BTW, your inability to discern reliable sources from blatant fringe is disrupting multiple pages. If you can point me to more pages that you have tried to push fringe POV at I would be very grateful. Also if you have any questions about reliability feel free to ask them here or at the WP:TEAHOUSE, always room to educate a newbie editor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone at ANI would find my contributions disruptive, your actions on the other hand look like WP:HOUNDING and your comment on my abilities is a personal attack that you might want to strike. I will of course notify you here if I decide to open a case. - Palpable (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Note that "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Are you saying that these problems are all unrelated? To me they all seem to be related to your own idiosyncratic understanding of reliability. You understand that open access and fringe journals are not WP:RS, right? You understand that WP:DUEWEIGHT is based on coverage and not your own opinion about relative merit, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I was going to let this drop after the warning, but you seem to have a serial HOUNDING problem.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Palpable (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits to road articles

Please stop with the mass tagging of state-detail U.S. Route articles as not being notable. Per WP:USRD/P and WP:ROADOUTCOMES, articles about U.S. Routes are notable. Dough4872 22:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That not how either of the linked pages works... Nothing can be notable "per" them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

You are going against years of precedent. Interstate, US, and State highways have been proven notable enough for their own articles while county and local roads are more questionable. We have state-detail articles for Interstate and US routes in order to break down the national articles by state for size reasons, as all the information would not fit in one article for an Interstate or US route that crosses multiple states. If you want to discuss the notability of US road articles, I would suggest starting a discussion at WT:USRD. Dough4872 23:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Precedent does not trump policy or guideline and is often incorrect. "as all the information would not fit in one article for an Interstate or US route that crosses multiple states." are you sure? Theres almost no content at all which is sources to reliable secondary sources, there doesn't seem to be more than 20k which actually belongs at U.S. Route 19 which is 10% of where we generally consider splitting pages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, start a talk page discussion if you are concerned. Tagging and blanking pages is not the way to fix issues. Dough4872 23:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

They are actually approved ways to solve this issue... They're some of the most common ways for solving a lack of reliable secondary sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Dough4872 I read the page Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Roads/Precedents that you linked, and found there was an increasing tendency for articles to be deleted instead of kept, which is in line with what I have witnessed with, say, sportsperson articles. In any case, that page is simply a list of results; it is not a policy or a guideline. Source it or lose it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:15, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unkindness

Exactly why did you say "it looks like the whole bushel needs to take a good hard look at their lives" on WP:HWY? Why? This is not funny, you know? Please, be careful with the way you talk to people. Honestly... 41.223.117.66 (talk) 10:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You know whats funny? [2][3][4][5][6]. What it do boo? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You know whats not funny? [7]. Don't ever do something like that again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)