User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Self-revert your edits to my own comments
Please self-revert your edit of my comments. As you can see in this diff, I made sure this time to not edit anyone's comments other than my own, out of respect for your objection. By pressing forward with reverting my edits to my comments, your actions come across as if they're not about me editing others' comments but instead about—what? Do you disapprove of me changing my mind and deciding that an apologetic website is a bad source for Wikipedia? Do you disapprove of me listening to your feedback and restoring edits to my own comments while leaving others' comments untouched? I can't think of a reasonable purpose for your edit. Out of good faith I am hoping this was a mistake, so I am asking you to acknowledge your error and self-revert. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You made an edit to a talk page with changed other peoples comments in addition to your own... Your edit was reverted... You are now objecting to being reverted on the grounds that it reverted the changes to your comments as well... Do I have that right? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If indeed what you did was not a straight revert but "restoring edits to my own comments while leaving others' comments untouched?" then I apologize for reverting you, but I took the edit summary as true. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am objecting to your revert of this edit (already linked in my OP of this thread) in which I undid specifically your edits to my comments but made sure to leave comments not my own in the state they were in when they were first posted by their own users. Click the diffs and look for yourself if you like. You will see that this edit (already linked in my OP of this thread) made no changes to anyone's comments other than my own. In the absence of you reverting your edits of my comments, an action which you recognize as being contrary to the talk page guidelines—including one instance which change[d my] meaning, something the guideline says one should never do—your apology rings hollow. Please self-revert your edit. Hydrangeans (she/her &#124; talk &#124; edits) 00:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize, I was misled by the edit summary and did not realize the limits of your edit. Another editor has already reverted to what they see as the status quo which I am happy with, unless you object I will leave it as it is. Please understand that in the future while you are welcome to edit your own comments for privacy concerns there are not similar grounds to edit the comments of others. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Horse Eye&#39;s Back, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Rlendog (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thank you very much Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well done @Horse Eye's Back! MatthewDalhousie (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Spare some time?
Hi, there is a move discussion at Talk:Public Sector Undertakings in India which is receiving less participation and is likely to be closed without a clear consensus. I would greatly appreciate if you could spare some time and leave your valuable opinion. Thank you. Have a great day. 2409:4073:104:92C2:9939:2182:D47D:646F (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Notification
You are involved in a recently filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason I was notified of this thread after I had commented in it? Trying to understand what the point of that was. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Crossed edits, see your talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Re LDS Discussions
Hi Horse Eye's Back. I appreciated ජපස's statement that WP:CIVILity as a principle works best when people are honest about the impact of various statements on them. In that spirit, I would like to be honest and say that, given your responses to Awilley, I personally feel strongly dissuaded from taking part in these discussions.

Let's grant that Awilley is completely, unequivocally wrong. These topics are super complex, and many beliefs and denominations are extremely obscure. I was unaware of e.g. The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) until this afternoon. If someone's argument excludes a small group, we should assume good faith. Maybe they didn't know about that group, or they forgot, or they overly simplified. Instead, I see you repeatedly calling his mistake "bigoted" and challenging him to disclose his religious beliefs.

This makes me worry: Will you assume the same about me if I don't know something? If I mistakenly say that Christians don't consider the Book of Enoch canonical, would you say "Actually, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church does" so I can learn, or would you assume this is my bigoted way of denouncing the Tawahedo Church as heretics? Would you press that accusation on an Arbitration page, challenging me to defend myself before an audience of admins? I hope you don't intend to give this impression, but I worry you'd assume the worst!

I understand that LDS edits are fraught in light of the BYU issues. I get why you're concerned about COIs in this area; we really have seen bad behavior! But even if Awilley turns out to be Russell M. Nelson himself, I think your cure is worse than the disease. I worry that I'm already under a cloud of suspicion because we disagreed about one sentence on one page. I hope I'm wrong.

Personally, I'm fine disclosing my religious background. My only hesitation is that I don't want others to feel they should. My sister-in-law is an Iranian refugee. Her family had to leave their country because they practiced the Baháʼí Faith. I know for a fact that there are countless people who will not touch this website if their religious beliefs aren't safe with us. And if I feel chilled, I know that other people feel that much more.

I would like to personally request that you take these concerns seriously, and that you try to lower the temperature in these discussions. Thank you. Ghosts of Europa (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It would depend on the context and how you did it, Awilley doesn't appear to be mistaken though... They appear to be POV pushing. Being wrong isn't an issue, but pushing an organization's POV on a page about that organization is in my opinion an issue. The general rule is that if you have a COI you can't disclose don't edit the topic and you will never need to disclose, nobody is forced to edit topics they have a COI with. Also just to be clear Awilley still contends that they're correct, not mistaken. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. Count me among the confused. Why am I in a thread about Mormonism all of a sudden? Not necessarily against helping, mind you -- just confused. This is apparently not the same case that's been going on, but a spinoff clarification and...er? Elinruby (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Its not a thread about mormonism, its a thread about when you can for example ask someone if they're Catholic. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * except that what you added was a question about whether they had any past or present affiliation with an organization that has a stake in how certain events are portrayed. Including but not limited to the Catholic Church and its affiliates. Note that they declared one, but there is something there that I can't talk about because it's offwiki. It's a bad example for your purposes, is what i am saying, since there is offwiki evidence that was already submitted. To be clear however, I think the residential school issues need to be CT and have previously said so, so it is possible that you have made it possible for that to happen without me having to file a full-blown case request.
 * So I am not upset, but it would have been better to ask a question than to simply assume that the question he was avoiding was merely "are you Catholic?" Because it wasn't. Also, residential schools are the topic of at least two separate hoaxes involving at least six publications and are not just a minor sideshow that possibly might shed some light on the unrelated behaviour of another editor in another thread on an completely different topic. I think you have a legitimate question, since I instantly had a warning on my talk page accompanied by some snark from my hater page stalker, but I think I should caution you that the residential school issue is big and sprawling and already includes one topic ban at ANI, an RfC on one of the sources, a NPOV post and half a dozen mega threads at RSN. Just so you know, it is going to be my position that if we are going to talk about residential schools we should do so comprehensively and not merely as a matter of noticeboard etiquette when the behaviour of a religious organization has been mentioned. Elinruby (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree that we probably do need to comprehensively address residential schools as an issue, but I don't think that they're as different as you think they are. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "they" refers to here but bottom line, I am not mad at being added to the clarification request, but the COI I asked about is only relevant to one small subset of the problems in the Canadian residential school topic area, and a full case about the topic area might have a cast of thousands. That is not much of an exaggeration. I say this as someone who was added to the Holocaust in Poland case because I was editing articles about the war in Ukraine, but then did not have much to say because Ukraine was declared off-topic. was in a similar position and would up getting topic banned. I just don't want what is, to me, the primary point, to get lost. That's all. I think there are better examples for your concern and cited a couple, which may be helpful to you, perhaps, not sure.
 * I do think there is such a thing as religious beliefs that impair an editor's ability to be neutral in some cases, so I support your concern, if as I believe that is what you are trying to say. The problem with religious belief is that it is immune to fact and logic a lot of the time. You did make moot what would probably have been a tedious discussion with RTH about that NORN thread, so thank you for that. Please ping if you reply, a lot going on on my end. Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Why are you at 2RR at 2021 Canadian church burnings during a current talk page discussion on this exact issue?
I saw blanking; I reverted it. Now that I see there's active discussion on the talk page, your second blanking is in clear violation of our WP:BRD social norm. Now you're obliged to talk this out, or continue your edit war. I take no position on the merits. BusterD (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The social norm is that BRD is optional... I chose the option of not following it... You misunderstand the norm, although it is clearly stated in BRD... "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus." (emphasis in original) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Also just to be clear "I saw blanking" is not a valid reason to revert. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Blanking cited text out of the blue is one of the more common reasons I find myself reverting. I see such action as disruptive while discussion is ongoing. My actions are always subject to review. BusterD (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't out of the blue (it had a solid explanation that withstands scrutiny) and you said that you weren't aware of the discussion when you reverted. That means that you reverted without a valid reason... Which is universally seen as disruptive. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I get an apology and an acknowledgment that you will be changing the way you edit to conform to community expectations and norms? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi what got blanked, please? Elinruby (talk) 07:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok I have looked now. I see the same person is still reverting to keep the same stuff in. that's really not an article you should jump into without asking some questions, and you definitely shouldn't be believing the one guy who is claiming consensus, because he doesn't have it. And that isn't a discussion btw, it's extended IDHT. Elinruby (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * see what I mean, though, HEB? Elinruby (talk) 10:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarification request closed
The Noleander clarification request, in which you were listed as an involved editor, has been closed and archived. The request was related to that case's principle 9, which states: "Editors are expected to refrain from making unnecessary references to the actual or perceived racial, religious, or ethnic background of fellow editors. Such references should be made only if they clearly serve a legitimate purpose. In the context of a noticeboard discussion or dispute resolution, it will rarely serve a valid purpose to seek to classify the participants in the discussion on this basis." Among the participating Arbitrators, there was a rough consensus that this principle remains true with current policies and guidelines and that there is not an exemption from this principle for asserting that an editor has a conflict of interest. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 05:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Wine Task Force
Hey HEB, I've waded into the Wine subject area accidentally after rewriting Tom Stevenson's page. I've been writing a few articles over the past few days from red-links I've been creating, but I've been nervous about sourcing. Articles I've created: Tony Jordan (winemaker), Ao Yun, Essi Avellan and Brian Croser. I'm a bit dubious about the-buyer.net, The Drinks Business (maybe industry publications, paid to write), Wineanorak and Fine - The Wine Magazine. If you have any thoughts on these or resources for writing these articles that would be valuable I'd love to hear about them. Thankyou. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Taiwan under Qing rule. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * you did not remove the content on OR grounds... You removed it on reliability grounds... Your claims about reliability were not veracitous... Your edits were reverted on those grounds... To now claim that this is about OR is disengenous and uncivil. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Thai beauty
Hello, Horse Eye&#39;s Back. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Thai beauty, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)