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

Removal of Rolling Stone review from What Is a Woman?

Hey. Would you consider self-reverting this removal on What Is a Woman? While I agree with the removal in this edit, as we were using the Rolling Stone article for factual reporting on the Gender Unity Project's shutdown, I don't believe the same applies to the former revert. As that particular bit of content was an attributed review, it seems to me as though it would be subject to WP:RSOPINION, and that we are simply summarising the opinion of the reviewer and not relying on any factual reporting from the publication. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Also in this regard, as a review of a film, it would be subject to the Rolling Stone (culture) (sorry it doesn't have an anchor) entry at WP:RSP and not Rolling Stone (politics and society, 2011-present). So it would be a reliable source, and subject to RSOPINION as a subjective review of a film. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

How in the world would this not fall under politics and society? 99% of the coverage we have is about politics and society, not the artistic or cultural merits of the film. WP:RSOPINION would appear to be against you BTW, might want to double check that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a review of the film, not a piece of factual reporting on politics and society. Film reviews are inherently cultural, even if the film content is political. The content we're summarising and quoting from the review is entirely related to the film's content and distribution.

Otherwise, you might want to start removing content from the reception section cited to The American Conservative, New York Post, The Spectator Australia, The Spectator, Spiked, and several other generally unreliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Thats a novel and uniquely absurd argument, if you want to ask at ANI whether this would fall under culture, politics and society, or both be my guest. I would be delighted to sip my coffee and watch your argument's evisceration. If we have opinions from non-notable authors in unreliable publications they should be removed, you don't appear to have objected to my removal of undue opinions and coverage other than Rolling Stone. Is there a reason for that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something, you've removed two other opinions today. I agree that citing a review by a Daily Wire contributor is massively undue, given the obvious connections between the film and that publication. And I think your reasoning for removing a Film Threat review is sound as it is a paid review site. Is there any other removals I've missed?

The issue here though is that I'm disagreeing with your reasoning that this is covered by Rolling Stone politics and not Rolling Stone culture. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The review was not in the daily wire, it was the author's personal opinion and just as due as the rolling stone one (unless I'm missing that the author is notable, they don't appear to be). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

So on Christian Toto's review, it seems as though we're in agreement that it's undue, we just have different reasoning for why it's undue? For me it's because Toto is a frequent contributor to the Daily Wire, and so would not be considered intellectually independent from a film distributed by the same publication, even though the review itself is published on Toto's website. Why then do you think it was undue, as you said in your edit summary? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Because Toto's view isn't significant, it doesn't matter... In an encyclopedic sense nobody cares, which appears to be the same for the opinion of the author in Rolling Stone unless I'm missing something. For me this is the end of this conversation on my talk page, if you wish to continue lets do so at RSN or on the article talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, ANI seems like a massive overreaction. In the first instance, if you are not amenable to self-reverting, I will open a discussion on the article talk page and see if a consensus can be formed. After that, if necessary because a consensus can't be formed, I would go to RSN for some clarity as to whether the review falls under Rolling Stone's culture entry, or its politics entry. ANI, as I'm sure you're aware, is for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems. This doesn't seem to be either, and is instead an editorial disagreement on removal of content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that should be RSN. Was also posting at ANI[1] and my brain crossed wires... Should be RSN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol.

You are funny! Gukrag (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I was only going to go back 1,000 edits... Thanks for the motivation to make it all the way to the bottom of the cesspit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Mate, you do you! Full power. It's always nice to see you turn up on a talk page to struggle with basic comprehension and simple logic. Makes the world feel right, and I know I'm going to have fun for a few days. Catch you round! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.204.155.135 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Glad to bring some joy to your life! Hope it balances out the pain from the necessary edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah... another sock... what an empty life they must have. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Scottywong case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Scottywong/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi, Do you remember discussion about Spartan 3000. I received the official answer from ROKMC.

Can you participate in discussion again? Footwiks (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of reliable sources and content

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing.

You are removing what you consider to be unreliable sources from the Maria Valtorta article and the Poem of the Man-God article, but are from well-established publishers, some of the largest in the US and the world. For example, OSV Press is one of the largest Catholic publishers in the world. Pelican (acquired by Arcadia) is also widely considered a reliable publisher with thousands of titles, while Arcadia is obviously reliable with ten's of thousands of titles. Arkenstrone (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arkenstrone: I explain myself both in the edit summary an on the talk page, my explanation was adequate that is not a valid template. A publisher which is "the central publishing house of the Neo-Confederate movement," is unlikely to be "widely considered a reliable publisher" and you haven't presented any evidence which supports that position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You cannot impeach a publisher based on a few unsavory books they may have published in the past, which are completely unrelated to the book in question—in this case a Catholic title to do with Mariology. In any case, as of 2023, Pelican's neo-confederate titles are not listed for sale at Arcadia's website[2], which you already know, since you are the one who directed me to the Wikipedia article in the first place. If you still take issue with this source, file an WP:RSN. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What qualifies this publisher to publish on Mariology? As you yourself said their specialty is local and regional United States history. Does the person the book is about have some sort of relationship to New Orleans, Louisiana, or the American South? Note they only have four Catholic titles listed on their website[3], the book in question is not among them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

A 'specialty' does not preclude the publishing of other titles in other fields. Some publishers like OSV Press publish only Catholic content, while others publish a variety of titles spanning many different topics. Again, if you don't like the source, file an WP:RSN. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That is just flat out not how this works sir, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"WP:BURDEN. And again this book is not for sale on their website, you suggested that the publisher was reliable because they no longer offered specific Neo-Confederate works what then are you suggesting about this book which is also no longer for sale? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, you failed to explain your removal of the book by OSV Press, other than ambigously state "unreliable source" which it is not. As I said, OSV is one of the largest Catholic publishers in the world. I'm not sure exactly what you're agenda is, but I suggest you file WP:RSN's for any sources you consider unreliable. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I explained it in an edit summary[4] and opened a talk page discussion[5]. If you want to use the source and can not get a consensus on the article talk page that your desired use is appropriate then yes, you can bring the specific source in context to RSN... Thats always on the person who wants to use the source, not anyone else. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Those sources have not been a source of contention for the several editors that have been actively editing those articles. Only since you arrived on the scene, have you questioned their reliability and begun removing sources willy-nilly, because you consider them unreliable, which nobody else does. In any case, there is no consensus for your removals. So please stop, and bring up on the talk page any desire to remove existing sources. Or file WP:RSN. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand that you haven't edited widely since returning from wiki-break but consider that much may have changed in the intervening decade. Please review our contemporary versions of WP:RS, WP:ONUS, and WP:BURDEN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

All met. See the discussion above regarding reliability of sources and publishers. If you still disagree, WP:RSN, or WP:AFD. Arkenstrone (talk) 02:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

But you don't have consensus so how can they be met? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure we do. There is explicit consensus, and implicit consensus. No disagreement when the edits took place == implicit consensus. See: WP:CON, and WP:EDITCON. Arkenstrone (talk) 03:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes.. See them "Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly. An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted." and where is the explicit consensus? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of presuming good-faith (which is becoming increasingly difficult the more I see your line of questioning + edit history attacking articles that are in some way peripherally related to Maria Valtorta or The Poem of the Man-God — all in an attempt to discredit reliable sources and eventually bring into question the 'notability' and presence of the article itself), I've answered your never-ending questions. Now, if you wish to make any substantive changes, take it up on the talk page, and garner explicit consensus first or file WP:RSN, WP:AFD, WP:RfC, or whatever other tool you fancy. Arkenstrone (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Its been on the talk page and in discussion this entire time, you've just duplicated that discussion here. You are on my talk page not your own... You are only here because you chose to be and are free to disengage at any time (I could also kick you out but you've been more WP:IDNHT than outright vandalism so I've tolerated your disruption). Its a fun little conspiracy you've cooked up, but its not true. Again... "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." which would be you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Again... "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content."

Per WP:CCC

"Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. On the other hand, proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive.

Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing. That said, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion."

You are on my talk page not your own... You are only here because you chose to be and are free to disengage at any time

Hey, I'm just responding to your comments which are in turn responses to my comments. If you choose to duplicate your questions/responses, then I guess it's reasonable to assume you will get duplicate answers. If you don't want me to engage here, then don't respond and I'll take that as a sign that you don't wish to discuss this issue anymore, at least here. If you prefer, we can keep these discussions at the article talk page, which, admittedly, is probably best since these discussion deal directly with article content. Arkenstrone (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

"Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing." My change became the implicit consensus the moment it was made. There was no explicit consensus. This was not a matter resolved by past discussion. Consider yourself banned from my talk page, I don't play games like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arkenstrone: I would be remiss not to inform you of the existence of this recently published academic paper about wikipedia [6], I apologize... I had seen that your original edits were old as the hills but I did not realize that you were one of the foundational PROFRINGE editors who lost the great reliability wars. The discussion over homeopathy is apparently foundational to what has made wikipedia so great, at least according to the authors. Thats epic, you're like a titan bro. But you got to understand, there's a new pantheon and you gotta respect the new rules around here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Notification

WP:ANI#Edit warring at User:Roxy the dog, and WP:POINTy stuff as a result. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

One question

I have only one question for you to think about - Would you say, with everything you know and have read and seen here, that all your recent interactions with User:Tryptofish at WP:AN/I, Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, and Wikipedia talk:Don't knit beside the guillotine, and elsewhere, are ones that you are proud of, and which you would say are positive, collegiate, contributions to the encyclopedia project? - jc37 06:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37: yes, incredibly proud of those positive and collegiate contributions to the encyclopedia project. Fringe POV pushing should never be tolerated, doesn't matter how seasoned the editor is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

User:Gugrak

Seems old mate had a soft spot for us and decided to stalk our user spaces accross wiki projects and engage in a bit of vandalism. You can find details here over on Wikimedia Commons. AlanS^talk 07:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

G'day, there's a discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents where a couple of users are trying to get sanctions on me due to them being on one side of Ben Roberts-Smith, even though my last edit was over 24 hours ago and even that was a minor edit. Any chance of you having a look and seeing if you have any input. Regards. AlanS^talk 10:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ben Roberts-Smith

G'day, I've started an RfC in the talkpage for Ben Roberts-Smith on the question of whether the phrase "disgraced his country" attributed to Justice Besanko, should be included in the article. I thought you may be interested. AlanS^talk 04:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

WSJ is conservative

Hi, I removed the improperly sourced claim that the WSJ opinion pages hold conservative positions because it's an opinion and needs more reliable sourcing than merely citing other newspapers that call the WSJ "conservative"

I agree with the characterization of the paper, and I don't think any reasonable person would really dispute it. I'm just saying it needs better sources. I've started putting together some research to that end on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Wall_Street_Journal

Once we decide on a proper source, I'd suggest we add back the claim to the article with the qualification that "according to X the opinion pages of the journal show a conservative bias" or something along those lines. Wclark (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I've already responded in the talk page, please do not duplicate discussions unnecessarily. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I notified you here as a courtesy, to make sure you were aware of the talk page discussion. I'll continue the discussion there. Wclark (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, I read your reply could say the same. However, could you represent the facts where one claim that the artist supported intentionally that the Covid 19 is spread by China? BrightsForever (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something that claim isn't present in the material you've been removing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

A ventran Autopattrolled Checkuser Oversighter Adminstrator removed those previously as - action of oversight by foreign artist not deliberate action. Woman mentioned is not responsibility of the artis. Plus, production house legal action. Article have 2 lines on artist, however. Exaggerated reaction of fanbase mentioned on professional formal Wikipedia page against the encyclopedia rules BrightsForever (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Milk Tea Revolution origin detail is absolutely inappropriate. It has started way back in 2018 or beyond, when Hongkong activitist protested against Chinese government and freedom, along with other severe geopolitical issues. To claim it originated because of some minor foreign artist's oversight is pure distortion of information, misrepresentation and insult to the history of the revolution. BrightsForever (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

What do you think you're reading? You did not remove something which claimed that "it originated because of some minor foreign artist's oversight" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)