User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2024/June

Requested move for Twitter article

 * Simple Attention.svg Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, before sharing my views I have asked for a clarification from the OP... But you actually also make that claim here so perhaps you can help me... What is the notable development? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The OP would be the best person to ask. Other than the URL change, I have no idea. I had notified users from previous move requests as there appeared to be a broad consensus in favour for an article called X (social network) this time, the details of which were up to debate. I'm unsure if that is still the case but notified another set of users who participated in an informal survey some time later which included you. I seem to have missed that one as it wasn't a proper move request. I've just been hearing Twitter/X over the last week so I'm likely going to permanently withdraw from the debate and take a break. It's easy to give too much time to things that ultimately don't matter that much. The move request is closed now as far as I'm concerned. Take care of yourself. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, moot point now. Thanks for the notification and happy trails! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Same to you! 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 16:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Psst
WAID = WhatAmIDoing not WP:WAID :-) Levivich (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that makes wayyyyyyyy more sense... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Bowie
I've grown fed up with our constant back-and-forth bickering and I'd like to get this conflict resolved so we can both move on. If you're up for it, I am willing to put all tensions behind us, start anew, lay out all the facts, and see if we can come up with a way to include Mattix and the legacy her statements have left behind on Bowie that follows WP guidelines and works for both of us? What do you say? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That would be great, you really don't have anything to fear here. Please remember going forward that Mattix is covered by WP:BLP, if we're starting anew I expect zero BLP violations (for example attempting to use either Gates Medium piece). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware we can't use the Medium article. It's unfortunate because it conveniently lays out all the discrepancies between Mattix's stories, but alas we'll have to try to work around. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as that work around is within policy and guidelines no issue there. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
Hi. It is you who is trying to keep a certain information on the article, therefore it is YOUR burden to explain why that bit needs to stay on the article in the article talk's page. Regards.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * that edit seems to both add and remove text rather than just remove it. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? Wikipedia allows a copyedit and an addition to be performed in the same edit. Hope this helps.  ℛonherry  ☘  16:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Then aren't you also "trying to keep a certain information on the article, therefore it is YOUR burden to explain why that bit needs to stay on the article in the article talk's page." and note that I did open a talk page discussion. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)