User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023/February

SPA?
In what way am I an SPA? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You appear to edit only a single topic area, sports. Looking thousands of edits back in your history all I'm seeing is sports, sports, and more sports. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * First off, see here. And secondly, SPA is only for users who have likely made their account for only one purpose (as the name suggests). 20,000 edits over two years, plus over 700 articles on various topics, does not in any way make a "single-purpose account." BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are well aware that this issue has been resolved elsewhere. Neither you or the other account turned out to be SPA. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Edits on dairy industry
My edit is not a POV pushing. I respect your opinion but it seems your rêver is an ad hominem.

If you see the references, the studies were not even subsequently released. So the sentence if factually wrong.

I would appreciate if you focus on the content of my revision. Jervis49 (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is the content that my analysis that it *looks like* POV pushing is based. It does look like POV pushing, even you have to agree with that. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

247Sports
You're right about that one. Apologies. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it means a lot. No hard feelings. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

What have I ever done to you?
Why are you lying about me on the ANI page by falsely accusing me of doubling down as justification for wanting me banned? TheScrubby (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Content blanking
In BALTOPS, you twice reverted my edit  after inexperienced or ill-intentioned editors modified my addition, although the original edit doesn't meet the reasons stated in your own edit summary or any wiki standards for being subject to removal.

To avoid you getting confused a third time, here's the most relevant sentence from the source:

"Venäläisväitteen mukaan operaattorina kaasuputkiräjähdyksissä on ollut Yhdysvaltojen laivasto, ja aikasytyttimellä varustettujen räjähdyspanosten asennus toteutettiin viime kesänä Itämerellä järjestetyn Baltops 22-sotaharjoituksen yhteydessä."

"According to the Russian allegation, the US Navy was the operator of the gas pipeline explosions, and the detonators with time fuses were installed during the Baltops 22 military exercise in the Baltic Sea last summer." Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So it does fail WP:V then... "Sources" =/= one allegation. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your most recent addition with a completely re-written text. If you'd like an English language source there is this one which is more detailed. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please refactor your single post at Talk:ThinkProgress. The editors you are edit warring with are obviously clueful and I can't imagine that anyone has claimed that WP:OR does not apply. You don't seem to be relying on any urgent policy for your reversions and, at least superficially, the material concerned seems to have a bunch of references, so it is up to you to explain on article talk why a particular reference is inadequate and what text is OR. If you don't do that, you are liable to see the usual results for edit warring. I'm not saying you are wrong (I don't know) but you must at least pretend to collaborate. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what happened, I said "synth" "synth" "the entire section actually appears to be synth..." and "synth" and the Silver said "This has all been discussed before. Please use the Talk page if you wish to discuss major changes to this content." but it doesn't appear to have *ever* been discussed before, there is no consensus on the talk page that the content can be novel synthesis. Are you not aware that novel synthesis is part of our WP:OR policy? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of Wikipedia requires a rough approach and I am guilty of occasionally being rude to spammers or other problematic contributors. However, a rough style is not appropriate when interacting with experienced editors. Asking if I aware that SYNTH is part of OR is either ridiculous or an intentional insult. If you think I don't know that, you could gently remind me, but I have given no indication of being clueless in such matters so you should not assume I'm an idiot. Similarly, the editors at ThinkProgress are very experienced and your style there is totally inappropriate. Let me repeat the message above: it is up to you to explain on article talk why a particular reference is inadequate and what text is OR. You have started doing that, but that's what you should have done after your first edit was reverted (and you should have used a neutral heading). At the moment, consensus is against you on article talk and until that changes any further edit warring will result in a block. Johnuniq (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've encountered many editors (one with over 15 years experience) who did not know that synth fell under OR. It appears to be a rather common misconception, I'm sorry to have insulted you. As for "it is up to you to explain on article talk why a particular reference is inadequate and what text is OR" WP:BURDEN actually requires the opposite... "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." I'm not trying to be rude, but yeah I'm questioning your interpretation of WP:V as I've never seen anyone say that before. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Most of us are unable to read minds. If you believe a source is inadequate, it is up to you (when challenged) to explain your conclusion and back it up at WP:RSN if necessary. If you believe particular text in an article is SYNTH/OR, it is up to you (when challenged) to politely explain your conclusion and follow normal WP:DR procedures. Disdainful comments are not useful. I have not recently given any interpretation of WP:V, I'm just pointing out the obvious fact that you need to explain what problem you see on article talk in a polite and neutral manner. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't the editor who restores the information required to ensure that it isn't SYNTH/OR before doing so? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By restoring it, they are implying that they believe the text is appropriate per DUE/NPOV/V and all the others. That is challenging your removal. You are then supposed to visit article talk with a neutral and polite explanation of exactly what you think the problem is. Bear in mind that a section showing disdain for other editors is not going to get a good response. Collaboration is required and let's throw in AGF. People can overlook things or make mistakes, and if you have noticed that, you should explain it gently. However, it's always possible that they are correct, particularly when they are the kind of people who write FAs. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The requirement is not that they imply it, the policy requirement is that they demonstrate it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You are just wrong. You are challenging the stable version of the article, and you must be specific and gain a WP:CONSENSUS to change the text in the case of a WP:DR.  See also WP:BRD.  You were bold.  I reverted.  Now you must discuss and gain a consensus to change the content. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, even if it passed WP:V it would still be you who would need to gain a consensus to include per WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Just FYI nothing is "must" when it comes to BRD: "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of seeking consensus." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So everyone else is wrong? The bottom line is WP:3RRNO. There is no edit-warring exemption for being correct. If you want to find out a bit more about how things should happen, ask for third opinions somewhere like WP:Teahouse. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In this case yes it does appear that you guys are wrong, sometimes its me but this time the policy is on my side which is why I'm thumping the policy and the three of you are thumping the table... I made my reverts, I'm not going to make any more. Those who want to include the content will need to demonstrate its compliance with WP:V on the talk page. If they can do so or propose alternative text which does I will be satisfied. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No other section?
I've done similar editing here, here, here, and here. So I think it's unfair to say "no other page on wikipedia has a section organized like that." If you meant in the 2022 Nord Stream pipeline sabotage article itself, I could try it with the investigations section as well, which might help other edits simply add on to the page in the future. I did get thanked for that edit, though. Fephisto (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * besides for ones you've made are there any other pages on wikipedia have a section organized like that? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here, here, here, ... Fephisto (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those split sentences between columns. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe you should be aware of this
I could not find the below notification in your talk page history, my apologies if I missed it but it’s always good to remember about it. GizzyCatBella 🍁  01:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is there already, but better safe than sorry. Thank you! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I didn’t see it, I can remove this one you want, or just ignore it. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No harm in it, I've certainly been more active in the space these last few days than ever before. Note that this isn't my first account so there are two talk pages. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it is on this talk page User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2022/March. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry
Okay, I completely jumped to the wrong conclusion about your comment. I'm sorry. My only defence is that it sounded to me like the bullshit I have to put up with from that IP. I should probably have waited a bit longer to find out what you meant. 😕  Tewdar   18:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries, I'm sorry to have given you that impression. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for letting me off so easily. You certainly don't need to apologise to me. It wasn't your fault at all. 😁👍  Tewdar   18:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sexual meaning
Regarding this English is my second language, I don’t understand slang things as you do. Since you think that was sexual I'll look for that diff and strike it that but again: I didn't mean anything sexual writing that comment. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * See this and I’m sorry, I was completely unaware of the meaning of 'hammer out" GizzyCatBella  🍁  18:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, the babe in the woods excuse (in this context known as the Louis CK excuse)... Very well, but its not an excuse with legs. You will need to change the underlying disruptive behavior for it to be taken seriously. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)