User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2021/August

NPOV China Olympics

 * Hi, you had reported me as a IP vandal on the vandalism noticeboard? Bruh, if you ever had issues with my edits. Feel free to actually talk to me on Talk Page rather than reporting me behind my back. Not once did you talk to me. I am not at all unreasonable and can listen to feedback in a friendly manner. And also since you reported me, care to name just one vandalism I did on that China Olympics page that was wrong? I don't think I did anything wrong tbh.

My one issue is that You can not point to a dozen anonymous individuals and then suddenly write that entire countries are having tensions on a top political level. That is not NPOV as a few individual and anonymous trolls doesn't really represent a whole country. It's not Diplomats or the majority of China hating but a small group of internet trolls on weibo. To claim that the badminton match has created tensions on a high government level is just deceptive and why I removed it.

Even BBC with its weasel words had to admit that it's not the majority of the people but only a relatively small lot of trolls on weibo.

And more importantly, i don't think it's even appropriate to put politics section on the Olympic page. Other countries do not have that.

Why don't we also add the controversial Simone Biles trolls on American Olympic Page? Or how their American swim team angrily claimed the Australian swim relay team cheated? Or Singapore trolls attacking their champion swimmer. You don't put it in because it's undue weight and inappropriate (WikiVoice). The Olympic page shouldn't have a politics or internet trolls section in the chapter as it's not the place to put such things and I agree with 阿pp in the talk chapter above that it's best to put it in Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. 49.195.39.151 (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Your issue appears to be with the NYT not me, you will find “tensions” in both the title and body of that feature piece. If posting screeds to multiple talk pages is supposed to convince the community that you aren’t a vandal I would warn you that normally it has the opposite effect. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

China at the 2020 Summer Olympics
Hello. I noticed that you added a "politics" section in China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Please note that the article focuses on the delegation and the section you added is off topic. You may consider adding Olympic-related controversy and dispute in Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Thank you. --阿pp (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t appear to be off topic, why do you think that the page is limited to the delegation? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As the first sentence goes "A delegation from the People's Republic of China..." Responses from Chinese diplomats have nothing to do with the delegation itself. --阿pp (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * But they have to do with China and the 2020 Summer Olympics, hence China at the 2020 Summer Olympics being the natural home for the material. Its simply not possible to separate politics and sport, we have to give it the WP:DUEWEIGHT the coverage suggests it deserves. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Then do you agree that information like "Chinese leaders sent congratulatory messages to the delegation" also can be part of the article? You know, it's political, and related. --阿pp (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes of course we can include that with appropriate sourcing. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK then. --阿pp (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I will no long assume you a good faith editor. Clearly you added out-of-proportion negative information and removed neutral statement on China at the 2020 Summer Olympics. I am now sticking to my original opinion that this section does not belong to the page and should be moved to a more propriate page. If you have good faith, talk here. --阿pp (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

"Palladium as an investment" page
I thought I should let you know that, as we shared the same misgivings about the "Palladium as an investment" page value as an indipendent article, I moved its content to Palladium. OneShot010 (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  18:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * HEB - apologies for a ping that I think you will have received from my now-deleted sandbox. I was drafting a comment for ANI, and clicked 'save' without thinking, which I expect will have triggered the notification system. The full comment is now at ANI, I'd encourage you to read it and reflect on it. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  13:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

user:Casualfoodie
The user is engaged in POV pushing on Concerns and controversies at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Please, look through the edit history and help me if you can. Tanovschi (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I would advise against WP:FOLLOWING them or anything which could be construed as such, its best not to get distracted by editors like that and just do what you were going to be doing anyway. There seems to be other editors taking care of it in most of the places they’re being disruptive so there shouldn’t be any long term damage. Also please be aware of wp:editwar etc. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. I agree that it would be better for a third party to neutrally assess that situation. Furthermore, I'll remove the entire section for now to avoid triggering edit-warring. If someone believes it should be restored, they can do that later. Tanovschi (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Unfair judging
One of the listed diffs was in reaction to an editor who suggested we should ignore the wishes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on what name should be used to refer to it because of a policy that ceased to exist 43 years ago. If trying to punish and limit the actions of living people based on the actions of others decades ago has to be just sat back and accepted we have problems. Maybe my language was a bit harsh, but people on the other side have chosen to double down in mocking, to lecture me on why my views on the nnormative value of the naming of my religion are just wrong, instead of at least trying to understand why I feel what I feel. Then they was the totally dismissive way that my work of bringing up relvant articles on naming conventuions and showing official views of some was dismissed as "bias". Changing official views influence how we interpret results of searches for common name, and so they are always relevant, and to just dismiss them as "biased" is clearly rude and provocative. I always have the feeling that other people get away with being flippant and rude towards me, but I am not allowed to respond at all. When someone says they view something as equivalent to using the term "muhamadan", this signals they feel very strongly about it. This whole process amounts to punishing me for publicly sharing my views, with no regard to a reasonable analysis of my actual edits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want my advice I will give it: go back and look at what you said, then go and apologize to the people you said it to. Maybe they will also apologize for offending you, maybe they won’t, but you crossed lines that the people saying the M word you don’t like did not cross. Not to get too bogged down but I would note that the members of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints which I know personally refer to themselves as M and Ms... I will respect your sensibilities, but you can’t demand that level of respect from others. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)