User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2024/January

Sanity check

I have some NPP guy bugging me, saying that NBC News is a fine and dandy source for pogroms in Poland. Picking on you because you were in the same case I was; seriously, am I the asshole here? He says it looks fine to him. I've already given him a link to the current standard and to Barkeep49 saying on Jan 1 that a "respectable institution" is academically focused, as in a major university publisher. Apparently that's "needling". Afaik the remedy for this is AE, and I have neither the bandwidth nor the inclination. Any suggestions? Elinruby (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

i guess I should say they, but they do really seem like a he Elinruby (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be some ambiguity in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland#Amendment (May 2023) which needs to be clarified, I would say that in terms of the letter of what is written you are absolutely right... It is not valid unless a new and explicit consensus is obtained by that editor and that editor alone (For example the way its written if editor A, B, and C come to a consensus that the source is usable but none of them restore it editor D who did not participate in the consensus can't restore it without going and getting a new consensus). In terms of spirit I'd say NBC is ok because we already have a positive RSN consensus on its reliability, to me it just makes sense that this was meant to put a check on new non-academic sources... Not to bar non-academic sources which already have a consensus of generally reliability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

TLDR I would look into asking for a clarification/rewrite of the May 2023 Amendment rather than going straight to AN, every time I re-read the amendment it looks more and more confusing... I stated off thinking that I knew what it said but I am less and less sure of that as I spend more time on the subject (which is the opposite of what should happen with well written guidance). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

thanks, that's pretty much what l thought. Appreciate the 3O and yeah I don't want to AN I agree. Elinruby (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Reverting your bullshit edits

Even someone as hopelessly dim-witted as you must have realised by now that I know how to change my IP at will. You have stupidly chosen to create a lot of unnecessary misery for yourself. Symphony of Chaos (talk) 13:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

What you don't get is that I enjoy the game of whack-a-mole... I get off on it so to speak. The question to ask isn't "When will HEJ become miserable?" its "How long do I want to keep HEJ company?" (five points to Gryffindor if you get that reference) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Alpha Phi Omega members has been nominated for deletion

Category:Alpha Phi Omega members has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Naraht (talk) 08:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on List of Alpha Phi Omega members

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of Alpha Phi Omega members, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

LTA archaeology

Hi HEB, let me know if there is anything I can do about your current LTA. Coincidentally speaking of LTAs, have just stumbled upon the fact that somehow we missed this account back in 2020 despite it being sandwiched between other purely sock edits we did catch. One of those images is definitely stolen, but I'm almost tempted to believe the other two are legit. Best, CMD (talk) 10:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

All good for now, thank you though and good catch! You know the other day I tried kaya toast? Almost good enough to sock over. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

It is 100% the best jam to have with any sort of bread. CMD (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Horse Eye's Back's battleground behavior. Thank you. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 01:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to enflame an ANI by writing there, but if need be, I would: attending a school is absolutely a conflict of interest. Can anyone seriously believe that a person who's attended a school hasn't developed some personal feelings about the school, either dislike or like? Doesn't necessarily make them incapable of neutral editing of the school, but it is a COI and therefore should be declared. But there's the difficulty: I have very strong suspicions that almost every article that we have on universities and research organisations has been written (or at least very heavily edited by) the external relations department of the organisation itself, or someone closely related (usually they have the sense to do it quite low-key and well). I doubt a single article on a school is entirely free of editing by its staff and pupils. Often this is done in optimistic ignorance of Wikipedia's COI policy, so I think it's okay to make these editors aware of their responsibilities (with reasonable politeness of course). The difficulty is that many people will not want to reveal their employer, simply because they prefer to remain anonymous in high-profile online situations. And so a lot of relatively harmless COI's never get declared. This isn't right, but I don't think it's soluble. I wouldn't want to see anyone get in massive trouble for being involved in either side of that discussion, because the ability to discuss COI freely and openly is essential in mitigating its ill effects. Good luck with the ANI thread. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Those are excellent points, the point I would raise is that COI editing is largely self policed and its exceptionally hard to self police without clear guidance which we currently don't get. I think almost everyone would do the right thing if we could just agree on what the right thing was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I just felt the need to quickly drop by and say that while we can all always do better (myself very much included), I am grateful for your adept and sane editing. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I have closed the thread as "no consensus". However, I strongly advise you to moderate your tone in discussions and avoid bludgeoning, as if a similar ANI thread occurs in the future, it may well result in a block. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't think of a finer closer, I've been working on following your zen rule 29... Much the challenge, I am temperamentally and constitutionally indisposed to it but in some cases it does appear to be the only way to avoid bludgeoning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Purpose of sending me a notification for a draft page in my userspace?

What was the purpose of using the Wikipedia "thank" function for a mostly blank draft page in my userspace? Behavior like this can give an impression that you're watching/tracking me. If you liked the page, please just thank the version in mainspace. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If someone wants to thank you for creating a page they're generally going to hit "thank" on the page creation diff itself (thats the only way it will actually say that the thank you is for the creation, instead of "Horse Eye's Back thanked you for your creation of..." it would say "Horse Eye's Back thanked you for your edit on..."). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Sole Satisfier for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sole Satisfier 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/Sole Satisfier 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.

IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024

Hello, I'm Tommi1986. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, JBS S.A., but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tommi1986 ^{let's talk!} 15:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tommi1986: that is the lead, per your request you will soon find a message on your talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)