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

Carl citation needed
Hello! I didn't want to derail the noticeboard discussion any further, so I thought maybe we could hash out our differences here instead, if you think that may be useful. Or if not we can just drop it, that's fine too :) I've already provided multiple prominent opinion pieces that denounced Carl's firing, so I'm having a hard time understanding what other sources you were hoping to see. And I'm also curious, do you not find those sources' arguments to be convincing? And if so, why not? Best Stonkaments (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We would need a source which calls them prominent and links them to each other to make that statement. Just stringing them to together is at best SYNTH. A discussion of those sources’ arguments would be beyond the remit of this talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. I think the misunderstanding is coming from the fact that you're referencing guidelines such as verifiability and synth that apply to articles, but not to talk page and noticeboard discussions. We don't require arguments on a talk page to be as carefully sourced as we do in WP:MAINSPACE. Stonkaments (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are no longer discussing prospective changes to a page then I suggest you drop this line of questioning, I already said I will not participate in a forum discussion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal Note?
Greetings, pardon for disturbing you, but I’m a little confused on what you meant by Personal Note on the article about Chinese Communist Party. Would you mind clarifying the reason for the revert for a bit? I’d love to hear reason for reverts, because this way when I’m editing next time, I would know how to edit and improve Wikipedia better; I’m still just a novice in editing Wikipedia. Thanks! 一Tomukatsusu (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You added an unsourced personal note to the lead of Chinese Communist Party  it read "Although technically the PRC does have other parties and votings, the PRC generally considered to have an single party authoritarian system.” Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So what did you meant by Personal? I was looking for clarifications, repeating basically the samething doesn’t really help 一Tomukatsusu (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Its unsupported by any sources, its just your own opinion inserted as a note. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, make sense. Now then, I have another question; if I added a reference for the note, will it make the note not just my opinion? 一Tomukatsusu (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you need to figure out what the point of the note is first, what do you want to accomplish with it? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I just wanted provide the readers more detailed and disambiguated information 一Tomukatsusu (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A note doesn’t really do that, the technical confusion is not one thats going to be commonly encountered. Its also a bit confusing because you can have false opposition parties and voting within a single party authoritarian system... In fact almost all single party authoritarian system have both of those, thats the modern model, so I’m not really sure what clarification is being offered. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well fair enough, at least now I know how to properly use a note. Thanks for telling, very useful 一Tomukatsusu (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Please participate
To talk page please LVTW2 (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Civility
Just dropping a note to suggest that your latest comment on Talk:Taiwan steps over the civility line. I'd see that maybe on a user talkpage, but on an article talkpage it is clearly adjacent to the intended purpose. Your first sentence by itself (taking ellipses as more of a comma than a full stop in this case) conveys the message quite succinctly. Best, CMD (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * are you referring to "find a source, your own OR doesn’t work”? WP:OR is an entirely civil way to describe the edit, if you want “over the civility line” might I suggest a peep over here? I particularly enjoy "Hi English idiots, there are more places in the world than one with a queen” and "Why the fuck is this toddler-written nonsense by a single person with no evidence cited as fact?" Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:47, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh you mean this on the talk page. I think its still on this side of the line, at least it isn’t toddler-written nonsense by a single person with no evidence. TFD does appear to have a very real WP:CIR issue as well as a bullshitting issue, my apologies if my comment was distracting however. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The second one, I didn't realise it was in its own diff too. I haven't carried out my own assessment on TFD, I can only say I don't see how that is a productive addition to Talk:Taiwan. As for your link, where do you find these people? Also, there isn't a Queen of England. CMD (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes... I too am perpetually shocked at how low the bar is for civility these days, even some admins seem to have little time for it. I will trim on your suggestion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RfC: Is the MichaelWestMedia/APAC.news content due?. Thank you.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)