User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2022/July

Consecration of Russia
Why is talking about prayers recommended by Our Lady of Fatima non-encyclopedic in a topic about "conversion" of Russia? Jesuitsj (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no independent coverage I can find, coverage in a Catholic newspaper isn't going to cut it. Prayer recommendations aren't really encyclopedic and just to be clear the topic of Consecration of Russia isn't the conversion of Russia to christianity its the fringe religious concept know as the "Consecration of Russia." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So you have to remove all the Catholic topics in the entire Wikipedia because most of their sources are from Catholic sources! Jesuitsj (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How do you get there? Please review WP:RS Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead Air Silencers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dead Air Silencers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dead Air Silencers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. FalconK (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Absurd ideas about the rules
First of all, you are not an admin to decide on 3RR you opinion has no value beyond this.

Second, Regarding your post on my talk page:
 * == Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons	 ==
 * Information orange.svg Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Draft:Alina Lipp. Thank you.	Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a draft, not in mainspace. Mathmo Talk 18:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The draft article 2 sentences is covered in the sources mentioned. In other words, you are completely wasting my time and I am quite annoyed that I have to justify anything I do with you. 666hopedieslast (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Any means any... including main, wiki, user, draft, and talk. All are covered by our BLP policy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

stop editing the draft article
It is a draft. Quit the bullying. 666hopedieslast (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP applies to drafts. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a BLP issue. you bully 666hopedieslast (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course it is, the subject is a living person. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

3RR warning on draft article warning
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions

666hopedieslast (talk) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "See below for exemptions... Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." WP:NOT3RR Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Horse Eye&#39;s Back

Thank you for creating SIG MCX Spear.

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

&maltese; SunDawn &maltese;    (contact)   01:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Third Opinion
A Third Opinion has been requested for an interpretation of reliable sources on Pray and Work. Manannan67 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

A discussion taking place
A discussion taking place [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Is_the_word_%E2%80%9Cclaim%E2%80%9D_OK_to_use_in_a_statement_when_%E2%80%9Cstated%E2%80%9D_is_neutral_and_accurate_? here] may be of interest to you. The corresponding material at Scott Ritter has been removed until consensus is reached at the Open Discussion page. DO NOT restore the material until agreement fully in your favor has been reached. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging of Spotting rifle into Sub-caliber training
I added some illustrations and text to the latter article, as well as wikilinks leading to and from it, please check it now. What do you think about merging the quite detailed, but too specifically named article (all spotting rifles are sub-caliber training devices but not vice versa), into a more general topic which you marked as possibly not notable? Here are some sources which may demonstrate notability and in generally help to understand the wideness of the topic in general: https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Morris_Aiming_Tube.html, https://talesfromthesupplydepot.blog/2020/05/09/two-pounder-sub-calibre-training-round, https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/world-firearms/british-sub-caliber-training-devise-1971, https://armamentresearch.com/2x35-sub-calibre-training-device-used-as-amr-in-syria, https://books.google.com/books?id=C9QsLVcm474C&pg=PA393, https://www.police1.com/police-products/firearms/training/articles/training-with-sub-caliber-firearms-m79uie4uyJJ7pps1 Ain92 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately not all spotting rifles are sub-caliber training devices. However thank you for the sources. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Alliance Defending Freedom. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Elizium23 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * You're at three reverts... I'm at two reverts... And you're warning me? Classy. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary
user loves to provide excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary additions to articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1234567890Bobdob (talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Bobdob's now indef blocked for making personal attacks after I defended him on his talk page. Weird! If another user shows up to make the same edit, we'll be able to revert per WP:DENY. Yippee! BilCat (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Block aside I kind of love it, might add "user loves to provide excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary additions to articles." to my user page Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Go for it! He wasn't blocked for that comment anyway! BilCat (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting of WP:SERIESA
Hey! I see you making a ton of changes to Wikipedia is not Crunchbase, many of which change the meaning or remove major assertions. I think I'm going to revert it to a prior version; if there are some things you'd like to see changed, can we discuss it on the essay's talkpage first? It's an essay, not policy; while it's certainly not mine alone to edit, I fear you're trying to attenuate the point being made. FalconK (talk) 04:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, just open a talk page discussion with your preferred changes and I'l let you know what I think. You appear to be trying to make a number of side points about capitalism and the societal value of capital which significantly detract from the point being made, but again thats probably best for the talk page. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I really do appreciate your feedback about internal consistency and congruence with established policy. But also, the essay is primarily about a thing that's the result of an interaction between Wikipedia and capitalism, so I feel it's worth discussing.  I'll chat more about it on the talkpage.  FalconK (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting, perhaps thats why half of the essay appears to be about notability while the other half is about COI. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's necessary to combine those two concepts when describing the flood of interchangeable COI articles about non-notable companies that tend to waste our time at AfD.  FalconK (talk) 04:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is probably better left to the talk page but I don't feel that combining those concepts is wise, COI and notability are separate issues. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

D. A. Carson
I don't understand this edit. What do you mean by failing WP:V. Is it because there's no page number? With the Festschrift, of course, we could easily copy the details in a ref tag - would that be OK? StAnselm (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources don't seem to actually cover all that they're supposed to, they appear to be sources for just part of the statement and the rest would appear to be based on original analysis which is prohibited per WP:OR. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Grooming conspiracy theory
Hello, Horse Eye&#39;s Back,

Thank you for creating Grooming conspiracy theory.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Hello, I reviewed the article and I have some thoughts. The article uses the word conspiracy 15 times including in the title. 2 sources of the 7 you provided use the word conspiracy in direct relation to grooming. 2 others use the word to describe q-anon and other right wing groups. One reference to use the word in relation to grooming is Global News, another is the Intelligencer. It seems like a WP:POVPUSH to use the word both in the title and 14 other times in the article."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bruxton (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * that appears to be its WP:COMMONNAME, if you don't agree please suggest a name change to whatever title you fell is appropriate. Also just FYI but you're missing a few sources, Vox clearly says that "The new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric is essentially the same as all the old pedophile conspiracy rhetoric" with the "new pedophile conspiracy rhetoric" clearly being the grooming rhetoric. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan foreign relations - Donetsk and Luhansk
The whole point of adding that paragraph about Donetsk and Luhansk, despite it being unsourced, was that I wasn't sure whether to put these two territories into the article in the first place. According to the main article "List of states with limited recognition", it is indeed necessary to add these two territories. It is obvious that Taiwan has relations with neither Donetsk nor Luhansk, and that Taiwan recognises the territories as belonging to Ukraine. There should be sources available about Taiwan denouncing Russia's recognition of the two territories as sovereign states. If Donetsk and Luhansk are deemed to be unsuitable for the main article, then there's no need to add them to this subsection of Taiwan's foreign relations article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't add unsourced material. End of story. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a false pretense. According to the current state of the Wikipedia article "list of states with limited recognition", the Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR belong within that category of entities. As such, both of them, according to that article, also belong in the relevant subsection of Taiwan's foreign relations article. E.g. Transnistria and Abkhazia are both there, and the Taiwan FR article says that Taiwan has relations with neither country, nor does it recognise them. With that being said, I've been arguing over at the unrecognised states article that Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR should be removed from that article itself due to not fitting with the article's own criteria. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want, you can go over to the unrecognised states article and argue your case for why Donetsk and Luhansk can be removed, as I've been doing. Because, if they aren't removed, then they belong in that subsection of the Taiwan article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (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. Thank you. Bruxton (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)