Jump to content

User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

November 2024

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Electoral history of JD Vance 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; read about 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.
Articles for creation is not a consensus to split the main page. There is absolutely no need for split, and you (or that user) need a consensus for it. It is not my job to get a consensus for a merge because this is not a proposed merger, it's a contested split, and the initial proposal for a new subpage is what must now seek consensus. Reywas92Talk 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold edit... You were reverted. Maybe you are right that this is better covered elsewhere, but do it proper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I reverted someone else's bold edit! User:Lukasdragon1 split the main article here and performed a bold WP:SPLIT to a new, unnecessary page without consensus. How can you possibly suggest I started this, that I'm not doing it properly? I appropriately contested and restored the status quo per Wikipedia:Splitting#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion and WP:BRD. If Lukasdragon1 or you want the subarticle split off, you need to do it properly and stop reverting my appropriate initial objection. Reywas92Talk 21:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92... BRD is optional, with all due respect what are you talking about? Remember optional or not you didn't follow BRD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pretty intense warning for the "first offense" even if HEB made an error, which is not clear in any event. It is usually best @Reywas92 to begin with a less threatening warning for the first warning and scale up from there as may be required. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike other warnings, Template:uw-3rr only comes with a single level. This was warranted because HEB inappropriately reverted me multiple times to reinstate a bold edit I objected to. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In hindsight my reverts were entirely appropriate, you can't just tell lies like that... You chose to both edit war and warn me against edit warring, you chose not to follow BRD and then warned me about not following BRD. You were wrong, that you don't see that now is disturbing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lukasdragon1 did the Bold, I did the Revert. Then you decided to reimpose the contested split rather than Discuss. It's disturbing that you don't see that. Reywas92Talk 00:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The D in BRD applies to the person who was reverted... "Discuss your bold edit with the person who reverted you." it wouldn't apply to me... This however "If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version." would apply to you if you were trying to follow BRD (I don't follow BRD as a rule). You've also never actually contested the split, if thats you mean to do then go do it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Cordite Factory content tagged as 'Citation Needed'

[edit]

In Oct 2017 I inserted content into the Secrecy of the installation sub-section of the Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath topic, that added a link to the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey map library.

With your 18:52 14 Jan 2021 edit of this topic, you tagged my content as 'Citation Needed'.

The guidance for the "cn" tag begins "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, Wikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim. If your work has been tagged, please provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed."

My content is a hyperlink to the website of the National Library of Scotland, one of the six legal deposit copyright libraries in the UK and Eire, and to a page there, which shows a side-by-side comparison of two editions of maps of the factory location published by the Ordnance Survey, which is the UK's official national mapping agency.

As a reliable reference to trustworthy sources, I am not sure how my hyperlink could be improved or a more appropriate citation given.


Could you please clarify why you have tagged it as needing a citation and what you would like me to do?


My thanks, 'MrEckLeckTick' MrEckLeckTick (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrEckLeckTick: The text reads "The site was to the north-northeast of Holton Heath station, which was opened during the First World War to allow staff to reach the works. However, the site's location was omitted from WW2 Ordnance Survey maps as can be seen on this side-by-side comparison of the 1940s New Popular Edition 1 inch map with the same area from the 7th Series from a decade or so later." which isn't using it as a source its using it as source material for orignal research and then reporting the findings of that original research... Leaving the statement unsourced as no appropriate citation has been given. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I don't follow your logic.
Can you please expand/amplify using clear English? MrEckLeckTick (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't go beyond what the source actually says. You can't combine one map which says one thing with one which doesn't and then make a claim found in neither source based on that. The source actually needs to make the claim, otherwise it is original research which is fine a lot of places just not in a wikipedia article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § RfC: Times of Israel. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess: thank you but I think I will sit this one out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

[edit]
Greetings, Horse Eye's Back. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

[edit]
Greetings, Horse Eye's Back. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

[edit]

Hello! I don't know what you did here to get att the photos in the wrong places (plus 2 photos from one and the same cafe!), but I wish you'd correct it. I cannot figure out how to do it, though I've been logged in since 2008. Please look at the results of your edits when done! This was certainly not an improvement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you have ownership issues there buddy (there is no wrong place for a photo)... The technical effect is an excerpt, I think thats what is confusing you (you're not going to be able to see the text you want to change when you go into the raw because its not there). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SergeWoodzing: would you be so good as to point out the two images from the same cafe? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No need for personal attacks here, and a condescending word like buddy only makes that far worse.
Last time I looked there was also a historical photo of the "Logos Bros Central Cafe, Blackall, Queensland" which now is no longer there. Maybe you removed it wherever that is that the rest of is don't have access ("you're not going to be able to see the text you want to change when you go into the raw because its not there")?
Photos which are in the right sections (such as the old Swedish family) are preferred to their being strewn across an arcticle with less layout relevance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You start with "No need for personal attacks here" and then you proceed to make wild and unfounded claims about me having secret access and being sneaky and abusive. Calm down, this is an issue with your competence and you shouldn't be making your own lack of competence my problem. That being said I believe that I have solved any problems you have have, if I haven't let me know and I will be happy to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit[1] is just confusing, it looks like to try and solve the issue on Coffee Culture you went and disrupted Greek café culture in Australia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issues on the article are for that talk page. Your direct personal specific accusation to me of "ownership issues" is a clear-cut case of personal attack. Again, also, please look at the results of your edits when done! You might see that something got screwed up without anyone else having to complain. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, on the talk page you speculated that my edits were promotional[2]... And unless I'm missing something this entire conversation is about issues on the article so why did you even post here then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You do actually appear to be engaged in something akin to ownership too, you added[3] the photo of the old Swedish family you're now bent out of shape about. Ownership would explain the agressive and hyperbolic language you use, hard to understand otherwise (I assume you aren't normally a jerk). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warning stands about your accusation of ownership as a clear personal attack, along with the word "buddy" as an extra uncivil little spice there. What you are adding only makes matters worse and the warning even more appropriate: "bent out of shape ... agressive and hyperbolic language you use ... aren't normally a jerk". I respectfully suggest you adhere to WP policy on civility from now on. Nobody in this conversation has attacked you in any way.
Re "promo" you still have two photos from the same café here. Hard to understand why. I'm giving you a chance to answer that question civilly, w/o any personal slurs. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No slurs have been used, and unless I'm missing something there are only two people in this conversation so saying "Nobody in this conversation" not "I" is weirdly obfuscatory and seems to imply consensus which doesn't exist (be careful not to do that). If you added the photo of the old Swedish family then the ownership concerns turned out to be valid. I was not the person who added those photos of the cafe there, why are you asking me and accusing me of promotion? Note that you are also apparently accusing me of promoting a business that as far as I can tell folded in the 1990s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&oldid=1264123197"