User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023/January

Your motivations

Hello Horse Eye's Back, with regard to this question you asked [1], I don't understand if it is addressed to me or to Volunteer Marek. If you're asking me, well I obviously don't think I understand your motivations better than you do. In the comment above I just expressed my personal motivations - upholding the integrity and credibility of Wikipedia - but I didn't say anything about your motivations (honestly another motivation is that I'm a bit angry at the amount of time these editors are wasting here and elsewhere IMO for no good reason). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gitz6666: To Marek! Sorry for the confusion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

?

I don't dare remove this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Horsehockey Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

You don't need to revert with Dronebugs' deletion of that thread in case you're doing this on my behalf. I appreciate the pushback you provide against biased editing suggestions on the Talk Page of LoTT, and I wouldn't want to lose your participation there over a conflict motivated by something so minor. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Its not on your behalf, its because people have gotten too fast and loose with removing things from talk pages. I think its important to challenge all WP:IAR claims because doing so often reveals problems with the rules. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Culture is a RS

Catholic Culture is a RS. I see you have removed it from numerous articles, but I disagree. The material published and hosted by Catholic Culture is reliable. Your characterisation of it as SPS is wrong. I ask you to revert your edits in which you removed this website, if only for WP:QUO. If you want to consider Catholic Culture a non-RS, go discuss it at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard and/or at the WP:RSP first. Veverve (talk) 05:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: what about Catholic Culture's About Us page[2] suggests they're a WP:RS? Does even a single line? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

From experience, yes they are reliable; and they host electronic versions of previously published documents (journal papers, dictionary entries) which cannot be found anywhere else. Again, this is why it was necessary to ask others first before making such a drastic decision.

Also, you did not look at what you removed: reliable sources simply hosted on Catholic Culture (e.g. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary). Veverve (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A source is only as good as the host, if you can't trust the host you can't trust what is hosted by it. I wasn't asking about your experience, I was asking for even a single line in their about us page that suggests they're a WP:RS because what I see is WP:FRINGE. This isn't a drastic decision, no rational editor would have added it in the first place because it is very obviously not a reliable source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Veverve: lets not clutter up Karma1998's talk page, please respond here. Remember that its the person who wants to use a source which has to demonstrate that it meets WP:RS not the person who wants to remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Pending the result of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Noticeboard#Reliability of Catholic Culture, could you at least replace all entries you removed which were a reproduction of the Modern Catholic Dictionary by either the entry from either this website or the scanned book? Veverve (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate that the Modern Catholic Dictionary is a WP:RS? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: [...] Books published by respected publishing houses" (WP:SOURCE); "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" WP:SOURCEDEF.

The book was published by Doubleday (publisher), and is written by Catholic theologian John Hardon who taught at university. Veverve (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That does sound like it would be usable. You can source directly to the book but therealpresence.org absolutely can not be used, it is not a WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You can source directly: I am not the one who should do so, nor did I ask if I could do so. I asked you to replace the content you have removed with, as it pleases you, the very same content but from another source. Veverve (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't do it I doubt anyone will. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Then you leave me no choice be to ask you once again to go to back to WP:QUO by reverting your edits. Veverve (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you know what a WP:ESSAY is? There is no expectation that I do as you say, that's not how wikipedia works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying you do not oppose me reverting all those edits of yours as per WP:BRD? Veverve (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You don't need my permission, you just need a WP:RS. BRD doesn't really apply here, we're in a BDR scenario. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that someone brought up that CC does not accurately reproduce Hardon's dictionary so do you're going to have to read the real source to make sure it fits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

"I half baked my work, now either fix it yourself or leave it in the state in which I have (generously) been willing to put it in". What kind of mentality is this? That CC is not a RS is but your opinion, removing it was your doing; currently the WP community has no definitive stance on this website. Veverve (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Even assuming for a second that they are a WP:RS you'd still always want to use the actual source and not a re-print or copy paste. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. So, do you oppose me reverting all those edits you made?

I ask, because it could be considered edit-warring to revert so many edits of the same user. Veverve (talk) 17:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Weird stance for someone who already started reverting them[3][4], are you asking permission or forgiveness? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Permission. Those two were on my watchlist. The 20+ other reverts I would have to do could be seen as an edit war. So, do you oppose me reverting all those edits you made? Veverve (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

All of them or just the ones which can be sourced to Modern Catholic Dictionary? Also just FYI it could be seen as harassment but that's not what an edit war is and not a single editor will interpret it as such. Also 20+? Don't tell lies (or more of them Mr Retired), its 11 including the two you already reverted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just the ones which can be sourced to the Modern Catholic Dictionary. Veverve (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you just going to ignore the part where you threw out a made up number? Don't tell lies about me, I will not tolerate that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at it, and since I and others have aleady reverted some of your edits, I would have only two edits of your to undo: [5] and [6]. Veverve (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Retract that outrageous lie. Then we can talk. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I retract. Veverve (talk) 18:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Go for those two edits, you have my blessing if that is what you want. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2023 (UTC)