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

Uyghur genocide has an RFC
Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notification and good work notifying such a wide range of involved editors. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Uyghur Genocide talk comment
Hi. I have left the discussion because no resolution has been reached, and I assume you guys know more so I'll just leave it like this. I do not want animosity between any of us; I am sorry if I rubbed you guys the wrong way or if things got heated. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

COI
I do not have a COI and do not appreciate being accused of such.Belain1737 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please answer this under the COI notice on your talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

cn tags
FWIW, while claims of vandalism are silly, and posting to AIV about this is really silly (and annoying), there really is no significant benefit to tag-bombing articles. Right or wrong, it is guaranteed to piss off a lot of people, for zero benefit. You could literally (the real definition of literally, not the newfangled definition) tag 95%+ of sentences with a cn tag. I'd recommend saving it for things you think are much more important. This is not in my capacity as an admin - I suspect "enforcement" of this would fail miserably, and I wouldn't support trying to - but in my capacity as an observer of the Wikipedia ecosystem. If you enjoy adding the tags, so be it. But surely there is something you enjoy just as much that will actually benefit other people or the encyclopedia more, and annoy others less? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice, I have to say I’m still a little shellshocked at the response editorial actions have on people (it is far far from what I expected, we’re called editors not writers after all). If I may explain a bit on the enjoyment issue... No its not what I enjoy most, what I enjoy most is new article creation but I’ve attracted some stalkers through diligent sockpuppet hunting. About a month ago I created Vectrus and Atlantic Diving Supply and then had to endure a series of attack accounts which got shockingly far before being indeffed. That was the last straw for me, I think I’m in the mid dozens when it comes to dedicated attack accounts coming for me. Now its possible for a brand new sockpuppet or VPN IP to revert major changes with almost absolute impunity, its happened time and time again which makes me play a weird game of 3rr chicken with what I very well know is an attack account. Now what these accounts can not do is undue a large amount of rather insignificant changes in a short period of time, the filters catch that every time. So what I did was add minor editing to the wikipedia reading I was already doing. I was already doing that for BLP claims as my reading of policy is that its a violation to overlook any BLP concerns you come across. For what its worth it seems to have worked vis-a-vis the attack accounts although I’m sure that this explanation here is kind of tipping my hand. I hope you understand a little more where I’m coming from, any more advice you have would be appreciated. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As an observer of the Wikipedia ecosystem do you have any idea why it annoys people so much? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have great advice, really. I mostly wanted you to know that calm, rational people who don't go around screaming "vandalism" also dislike tag-bombing, not to act like a parent or something. It doesn't bother me as much, so it's hard to get inside their heads.  But it does bother me a little too, and as I think about it, it's hard to put into words, so I'll try, as an exercise.  Maybe other people have the same feelings, but just feel it much more strongly? What's inside my head is:
 * I have no objection to sparing use of cn tags to identify items that a more questionable than other things, but not so questionable that they should just be removed (like an O RLY? tag?); it's the addition of many, many tags about things that - yes, in a perfect world, will eventually need to be cited before we publish the final version and shut it down - aren't all that doubtful. I suppose it's like adding a lot of noise, so the signal is that much harder to hear.
 * I suppose it's partly due to the implied attitude (I said, and mean, "implied", I'm not saying this is actually your attitude) that "here are some things that I can't be bothered to fix, but I think other people should do the work to fix them".
 * It's often so pointless, I guess it's a little annoying because people think they're being more useful than they really are. Trying to think of an analogy here and failing... I guess it's like you might feel if you saw someone powerwashing the right left side of all the cars in a parking lot, for free, but leaving the rest of the cars grimy. I mean, it's not actually harmful, and it's someone else doing the work, but it's so pointless, it's actually kind of annoying that someone thinks it's of use? Or if you wouldn't find it annoying, you can imagine how others might?
 * It makes a page look ugly, which is not a small issue to people who spent time building the article up to where it is now (note that this is not my view, because there are no pages I've built up).
 * I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a WP:NOTAGBOMBING essay somewhere; if you want to hunt it down that might be more thorough and more elegant.
 * added later: It's at WP:Tag bombing.
 * Anyway, I'm procrastinating now so I'll stop. I'm sorry you've attracted dedicated attack accounts. I wish I had better advice on that front. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to explain. Perhaps we need a “what tag bombing is not” WP:NOTTAGBOMB addition to that essay. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks also. Your list is a good summary of things people have said to my tagging of articles. I think in essence, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a perception, sometimes unjustified, that the tagger just being lazy. I've had that one thrown up at me recently. However, I always remind objectors that reliable sources are required, not a suggestion, and that, for me, the other option is outright removal of unsourced text. They usually react even stronger to that suggestion, but that's the policy we're supposed to follow. Horse and both edit a lot of articles with technical information, especially aircraft related, and I'm amazed at how long some inaccurate information remaims in an article. Often, almost as soon as I tag an item, a reliable source/correction appears. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. However, some people, myself included, don't like to feel that we're doing work for someone else who is fully cabable of doing it themself, and that's part of the reason for such a strong reaction to perceived tag bombing. Such an attitude can be dangerous in the long run because it undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. (That could make a good start to the WP:NOTTAGBOMB essay. I might just do it!) BilCat (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think BilCat raises an important point about the usefulness of individual targeted tags, which presumably gets lost if everything is tagged. I think there's also the issue that in many cases it's clear to most editors that something is unsourced, so the tag doesn't actually add anything but another watchlist diff to check. CMD (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an important point to consider. I think its also important to consider that 99% of users of wikipedia pages are not wikipedia editors but normal people without any familiarity with wikipedia’s sourcing conventions. A shockingly large proportion of people believe what they read on wikipedia whether its sourced or not. Along with the practical we have to consider the ethical. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ethically I think Wikipedia's citation practices are more rigorous than many other sources that readers may also read and believe. As another thought, if you tag, consider adding the |date=February 2021 field so AnomieBOT doesn't chase you around adding yet another edit to the watchlist. CMD (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t really think thats a good enough answer, we have to examine our own responsibilities independent of what others do or don’t do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably why the requirements developed into what they are. The question at hand is whether adding cn tags helps substantially with that goal (not sure it does), and whether this offsets the apparent frustration it may generate among other volunteers. Anyway, this is a bit off the main question of potential issues adding cn tags and ways that could be ameliorated, which I hope I have added to. CMD (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Or you could simply not tag bomb. I'm just saying. When I read a page and see one of the typical tags that you have been placing, it annoys me. The underlying message is twofold: first it says to me "Horse Eye's Back thinks I am to dimwitted to identify statements that need citations without help". Second it sends the message "Horse Eye's Back is not willing to find a citation but instead wants someone else to do it for them". In the time it took you add twenty tags to Waveguide flange, Waveguide (optics) and Waveguide, you could have added a single citation and done far more to improve the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. Horse knows his skill set better than you do, and he may not have felt he knew the topic well enough to do it himself. Or you could have added the needed citations in the time it took to write your response here. You must just be lazy. ;) BilCat (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear I didn’t tag bomb, tag bombing describes unjustified use of tags. My use of tags was both justified and per WP:TAGBOMB (as much as anything can be “per” an essay) the tags I used don’t require an extensive explanation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There are also pages which I didn’t create but which I’ve completely bootstrapped, good examples are Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (1 source to 27), NCSIST (~a dozen unique sources to 72), and Agriculture in Taiwan (17 to 50). There are at least a hundred other examples. In addition I have well over a hundred article creations, you have five ... Why are you lecturing me again? The quality of my work and contributions to the project are beyond question, never forget wikipedia is a voluntary project and here volunteers get to pick and choose how to contribute to the project as long as they stay within out policies and guidelines. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am unwatching this page now and turning off notifications from you so that I will not see a notice if you ping me or link to my username.
 * I have no use for editors who think that new article creation is the only kind of editing worth doing, and who disrespect those of us who prefer to improve existing pages.
 * For the record:
 * You have made 8,595 edits to 2,734 pages since your first edit on 2020-09-25.
 * I have made 55,804 edits to 18,615 pages since my first edit on 2006-06-09.
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You came to another user's talk page to dump on him. I'm not surprised you got some pushback. Please realize that many editors would simply leave Wikipedia after all the crap Horse has been getting from sock stalkers, and your attitude isn't likely to make him want to stay. And, for the record, he previously edited under Special:Contributions/Horse_Eye_Jack, as his user page clearly states. I'll let you check how long he's edited and how many contributions he had under that name, and then you're free turn off notifications from me too if you so choose, if you hadn't already. :) BilCat (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The entire point was that there is no one right way to edit, that appears to have gone over your head. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand some people. User:Guy Macon shows up here uninvited to pile on, accuses Horse of disruptive editing, and then wants to be left alone. Very odd. I guess he's had a bad day somewhere. BilCat (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m confused by their repeated claims of being disrespected that appear to only exist in their head, whether its reading an ad-hominem attack into a Cn tag or somehow interpreting a very clear argument against there being one right way to edit wikipedia as a direct attack on their own way of editing. Ironically before this they were an editor I respected greatly. Unfortunately going forward I find it hard to have respect or admiration for editors who shitpost on other people’s talk pages and then rage quit when politely challenged. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I see the rage quit was comprehensive, that message they left on your talk page is something else, "I just turned off notifications from you, and I did not read whatever you decided to ping me over. I do not wish to have any further interactions with you. Please leave me alone. You can reply to this if you wish, but I won't read it.” Just wow. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yup. Assuming good faith, we all have bad days, and sometimes issues in real life affect our behavior on Wikipedia. If that's the case here, then hopefully he'll be able to get back to the person we knew shortly. I'll drop the issue at this point, as I have no desire to keep flogging dead equines. (There's enough of that going on there!! BilCat (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello Horse Eye&#39;s Back. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Atlantic Diving Supply, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Horse Eye&. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. This tag also includes the creation of Vectrus. BowlerJasper (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not and if I did most of the coverage wouldnt be of the times they’ve been brought to court... I have a question for you though: is this your first wikipedia account? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Jasper seems to have mastered the AfD process in just a few minutes. It took me many months to get my head around WP:NCORP, WP:ORGDEPTH etc. Interesting. Spiderone  23:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * if they aren’t a sock or something similar they just might be our messiah... Our own Athena sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus with a complete knowledge of wikipedia policy and procedures. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! Such a shame that he decides to waste time trying to get notable content deleted... Spiderone  23:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , drop the stick and step away from the dead horse. User:Horse_Eye%27s_Back you have posted the same message on all the AFDs opened by the aforementioned user. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the time they had not answered the question, is that a problem of some kind? I’m also not sure what you mean by drop the stick, the issue has never really been raised. Also just to be clear I am the creator of both pages nominated for AFD by the WP:SPA. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , and you just posted multiple instances of the same message casting aspersions to Bowler. See this and this and this --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking whether someone has edited wikipedia under a previous account isn’t casting aspersions. Take a peak at their editing history. Also I didnt just do those, they’re almost a day old. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well you accused them of being a sock on 1) the AFD pages 2) This talk page 3) User:BowlerJasper's talk page.
 * Just because they have nominated your article doesn't mean they're a sock. They could be editing anonymously or came upon those articles.  Read WP:AFD page and registered to nominate the article.  After all, only registered users can nominate pages. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They’ve actually never done anything but nominate two of my articles for deletion and then try to gut them. They’ve literally never made an edit outside of that or their own talk/user page. I don’t believe that I’ve made a direct accusation of them being a sock, if I have and you have a diff I will retract that specific assertion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , but you have indirectly implied they're a WP:SOCK. That is what casting aspersions mean. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is what one of the common meanings of casting aspersions is, thats not what the wikipedia policy is... Read what you just linked me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , well the page links to Wikitionary, which states: "(idiomatic) To make damaging or spiteful remarks."
 * Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you as it's obvious this will go nowhere. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad we cleared that up, if I had made damaging or spiteful remarks I would retract them. Have a happy new year. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you as it's obvious this will go nowhere. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad we cleared that up, if I had made damaging or spiteful remarks I would retract them. Have a happy new year. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! This notice is left in response to you casting aspersions to User:BowlerJasper Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have indeffed the user as an obvious harassment sockpuppet. I am appalled at the treatment Horse Eye Back received in this thread and on User talk:BowlerJasper by other users. Why are we giving socks the time of day? A brand new account nominating articles created by the same user for deletion within minutes of their creation obviously does not have noble intentions. Horse had good reason to call the user a sock. Sockpuppets forfeit all assumption of good faith the minute they start abusing multiple accounts. Sro23 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I was expecting an apology from you but the month is out and I don't have one, what gives? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no I am not sorry for the accusation. To me, you do seem very WP:BITEy.  You expect an apology but none is coming. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd. suggest you read Sro23's reply again. That you still refuse to apologize after seeing the admin's exonerating comments says more about you than Horse. BilCat (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No actually, I don't think forced apologies are very productive. This all happened a month ago so why it's being brought up now escapes me. Sro23 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn’t trying to force an apology (not to get into a philosophical argument but I consider the concept of a forced apology to be an oxymoron), I was trying to figure out why Tyw7 went radio silent after relentlessly spamming me on multiple pages about this issue. I have my answer, I am satisfied. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't recommending or seeking a forced apology either. I was merely pointing out that given the exoneration, the refusal to apologize in good faith is telling. I deal harshly with suspected sockpuppets, and I'm usually right. One gets a good Spidey sense for socks after years of dealing with them for so many years. I can't count the times a user has blatantly lied about being a sock, only to have it clearly proven in the SPI. I think I've been wrong once in all that time. So no, Horse did nothing wrong here, and the attacks here were totally unjustified. Remember, reminding someone about not biting newbies isn't an excuse to eat the oldies! BilCat (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We are in agreement it's wrong to eat the oldies. The sockpuppet is blocked and this all went down nearly a month ago, so I think we can safely move on. Sro23 (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Georgia and WIKISTALKING
Stop with the wikistalking and nonsense messages on the talk page.PailSimon (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You are edit warring on Anti-Georgian sentiment, you got an edit warring warning. What about that is nonsense? I also don’t think we’ve interacted in at least a week, what is the claim of wikistalking based on? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not confuse reverting to the long term stable version with edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But you aren’t doing that, you keep reverting to different versions. You need to gain a consensus instead of edit warring. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not paying attention to the edits then as I have consistently reverted to the exact same long-term stable version.PailSimon (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! That was your last post on my talk page! If you would like to make more wild accusations without supporting them with a cogent argument or diffs please ping me on your talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI
Please see here.PailSimon (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

East Asian socksphere
It seems a remarkable coincidence that right after I wring out a bunch of sock edits two basically new users spring up to just edit this article. I can't place them though, and they're not restoring the edits I removed but making new ones outside of my behavioural experience. Worth your eyes, if you're not too tired of dealing with ANI and your general Wikipedia life. What is it about this article? So many editors in the history have such odd contribution history. CMD (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think my plate is full for the moment so I’l avoid wading into that messy page again. I gave them a once over and I would concur that those accounts do appear to be remarkably coincidental. On the larger issue of why theres so much disruption in that space I would hazard a guess that we’re looking at a combination of rising nationalist sentiments in that area and within diasporas originating from that area and increasingly assertive government presence on social media and the internet from the regional governments. Internet users in that region are also disproportionately likely to already use a VPN which reduces the cost of entry and learning curve involved in transitioning from a recently blocked editor to a serial socker. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, your plate is quite full. On the page, it just seems oddly obscure. If it was one repeated sock-farm I'd chalk it up to an obsession, but it appears to be multiple farms. It's quite remarkable that a two-day old account is familiar with boomeranging. CMD (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like to call them baby Athenas because they spring fully formed into editorship like Athena sprang fully formed into adulthood from the head of Zeus. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

No header
Hi friend,

I just saw that you joined rather recently again - me too, although for the first time. I was wondering if you could let me know anything about your motivation for editing articles (obviously, you are an expert on certain (all?) topics regarding China) and if you have any tips for beginners.

Furthermore, I wanted to do a slight edit to the Wikipedia page on War (specifically put a link to the Wikipedia page of Transition from Ming to Qing where this war is first mentioned; there are other similar long-hanging fruits; this was how I ended up on your profile). However, the page is only semi-open - maybe you can help by letting me know how I can still make the change and then (hopefully) accept it?

Best wishes, L LarsOH94 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

CN
Please don't kid yourself you are doing anything useful by going round articles adding cn tags to everything that doesn't have a reference. The chances of this resulting in any references being added are vanishingly small. That's because we have lots of editors like you who just add tags, but very few indeed who do anything to sort them out. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I find tagged articles easier to improve than untagged ones (particularly in that they let you know how long an issue has been unaddressed without a deep and deeply time consuming dive into the edit history), wikipedia takes all sorts and just on an ethical level it is my personal belief that all unsourced text should be noted either in the text or at the top of the page. Take a look at my article creations if you doubt my contribution to the project. My last two article creations (Vectrus and Atlantic Diving Supply) were immediately targeted for deletion by one of the sockmasters I have pissed off through diligent Sockpuppet investigation participation so you will understand why my edits are mostly low key at the moment. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * HE, I frequently remove unsourced items from articles. I may be one of the rare ones, but I appreciate the efforts to abide by Wikipedia's policies, which I also value. Keep up the good work. Note, instead of tagging, in some cases you can remove the unsourced material outright, especially if an article tag about sources already exists. BilCat (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. I know it can be outright removed but I rarely do unless there are vandalism, spam, or BLP concerns. I like to give it at least a year or so to see if someone more familiar than myself can source it or something close to it. Straight up removing it does appear to do a better job of spurring other editors to source or replace the text but it also rubs people the wrong way and in my opinion creates more conflict than its worth. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm specifically referring to articles that have unreferenced tags at the top of the article, along with the other exceptions you mentioned. I understand about creating more conflict, but personally I find it worth the conflict to delete, as it generally gets results faster. :) BilCat (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its mostly a comfort thing, if its in a topic I feel sufficiently knowledgable about I’l remove lots of things under those circumstances and take on any discussion that ensues. The hesitancy comes in when I know next to nothing about a topic (as is the case with 95% of wikipedia). I’l probably get more decisive as I become better acquainted with wikipedia, it still feels very new to me and the ability of hostile actors to inflict damage is unlike anything I’ve encountered in other internet venues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I totally understand about hostile actors. Part of it is the ease of editing Wikipedia, especially without being logged in. I faced a lot of that in my early years, and even quit a couple of times because of it. If you ever need to talk privately, feel free to drop me a line. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is terrible advice frankly. Vast amounts of stuff on wp is unreferenced but accurate and important for the articles. The useful, but harder, thing is to try and reference it. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I always thought talking privately about a problem was a good thing! BilCat (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would take you more seriously if you phrased these things as your opinions rather than unassailable objective truths about how wikipedia works. Hyperbole and denigration are not the building blocks of a convincing argument. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You may have deleted my earlier comment, but the issue remains - perhaps you should consider reading:

Template:Citation needed


 * ... If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them.


 * While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously. Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require ... that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph.


 * For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking citations (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as Template:Unreferenced and Template:More citations needed (for whole articles) as well as Template:Unreferenced section and Template:More citations needed section (for sections of articles).

When you added the 'unreferenced' tag to Maritime Search and Security Operations Team, it would have been better to have used Template:Stub instead. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * again you seem confused and I’m not sure that my talk page is the best place to work through your confusion, why would Template:Stub be the more appropriate template there? Template:Stub has nothing to do with whether or not the page is sourced, I can see an argument for tagging it with both but not for one tag replacing the other as they aren’t related. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please keep in mind per "While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag,” the issue is with you not me. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You have to realize that is 100% right. I see you keep spamming CN-tags like there is no tomorrow. WP:CITENEED says that you should immediately remove trivial or unlikely-to-be-true claims. However, it CLEARLY shows that if the claims seem plausible or seems related to the article, you should make a reasonable effort at trying to find sources yourself. Only after which can you add a CN-tag, or remove the content and address in your edit summary that the content shall only be returned when a reliable source is cited. It is becoming evident that despite many editors informing you of your actions, you seem to be in denial. If you do not stop I will start reverting your tags for disruptive editing. There are already "refimprove" templates in most of these articles. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t say that you are required to remove trivial or unlikely to be true claims, action is *required* only in the event of a BLP issue. Do you have anything which backs up your argument that "Only after which can you add a CN-tag, or remove the content and address in your edit summary that the content shall only be returned when a reliable source is cited.” because thats not in the linked section. It seems to say the opposite "then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself.” Apparently there is no requirement to attempt to find a source, its an entirely optional step. Also if theres already a template at the top of the page and I added a CN that was a mistake, it certainly does not apply to most and you either need to retract that statement or provide an overwhelming number of diffs. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel the need to second the kind of points made by above. I came here via Dead hedge, a generally informative page that was crying out for some clean-up, if only for the sake of *clarity* (example). Instead, the page just got cn-tagged (bombed?), often after the sort of non-controversial, general statements that can be notoriously tricky to source appropriately. Like others here, I feel sure that there are plenty of genuinely useful alternative tasks open to you. 86.186.155.177 (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Who are you? I don’t see *any* significant contributions on your account. If something is notoriously tricky to source appropriately then maybe the person you should be yelling at is the user who added it not the user who tagged it? You have talked to that user about unsourced additions, right? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  // Timothy :: talk  18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)