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

Please be mindful of proper use of warning templates

Please do not add edit warring warnings to talk pages in response to a series of constructive edits with which you disagree, or simply when one of your edits is reverted once as at Boycott, as disputing a revert with which you disagree is not the intended purpose for that template. As explained in the edit summary for the revert, your edit was reverted because it reintroduced WP:NEUTRAL problems that previous edits had already addressed. Thank you. RiverCityRelay (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You hadn't just disputed my edit, you also reverted[1][2][3][4][5] two other editors (before I even arrived on the page) and it seems that you had done the same on the 21st as well[6]. Thats edit warring my friend. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's entirely incorrect, as the edit history for Boycott demonstrates for those edits.

Again, please read edit summaries. You're referring to constructive edits to rewrite two sections that had been mixed up in error, one describing boycotts of the Olympics and other sports events by athletic teams, the other describing diplomatic boycotts, defined specifically in that section as boycotts not involving participating athletes.

The series of edits reorganized the sections and only removed inappropriate information where needed, such as redundant and contradictory descriptions of boycotts already described by the article (such as a vague mention of an Olympics boycott involving multiple African states already properly mentioned and cited in the relevant section on sports events) or purported examples that were not relevant to the section or article topic (such as an article not about a boycott but rather a trade embargo, a separate topic with its own article, or an example that characterized as a "diplomatic" boycott what was simply a plain old boycott organized by non-governmental organizations, which do not have ambassadors, embassies, etc. under treaty or international law). I assume good faith, but I hope this will provide (again) an explanation as to why care needs to be taken when using edit warring templates in situations where they don't apply. RiverCityRelay (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Next time use the article talk page instead of edit warring. I'd also point out that this conversation is supposed to take place on your talk page not mine, reverting my edits to your talk page with "Remove. See your talk page."[7] and opening a discussion here instead of acknowledging the extremely serious issues raised is not a good look. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Spurious use of such templates to advance arguments over edits constitutes potential talk page vandalism; I am thoroughly okay with the "look" of reverting potential vandalism, and will continue to do so. If, instead, you added the template by good faith error, consider the reason it shouldn't be there, on my or any other user's page in such an instance, thoroughly explained to you now.

As already explained, no edit warring occurred, and I am puzzled by your reassertion of what I've already addressed and explained in detail above. Constructive edits with which you disagree are not edit warring. Reverting one of your edits that reintroduced WP:NEUTRAL problems, already addressed, is not edit warring.

I concur wholeheartedly that what you have here is an issue with the article's content, not with anything I've done wrong in terms of editor behavior, and I suggest that you take such issues to the article's talk page in the future instead of trying to build a dubious case for violations through misuse of warning templates on user talk pages. Thank you. RiverCityRelay (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't mischaracterize the arguments of other editors, even if in jest... I clearly did not say that there wasn't an editor behavior issue here. I clearly said that there were "extremely serious issues" with your behavior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

As I've established above, in detail, that this isn't about editor behavior, and you seem to have decided instead that this dispute over article content at Boycott is best addressed through an entirely different venue (though not the article's talk page, for some reason), I'm happy to end the discussion here. RiverCityRelay (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

How is edit warring and suspected sockpuppeteering best addressed on an article talk page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Universaladdress Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Taiwanese cuisine recent edits

Just to let you know that the Taiwanese cuisine page has recently gone through edits by other users, namely disagreeing with our previous consensus and that they do not believe we should call Taiwanese cuisine is authentic and retained originality of Chinese food. I personally think the way it is written now made it sound quite out of place so might as well delete it (because it sounds like personal opinion now by Fu Pei Mei, and on Wikipedia we want to ensure neutrality). Interested to see your thoughts. Also want to point out the account that edited appears to be new account.Kazuha1029 (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I will take a look. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Stop sabotaging the historical page of 1987 Lieyu massacre

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 1987 Lieyu massacre. 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:

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.

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. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Not the appropriate response to a warning being placed on your talk page. The WP:PERSONALATTACK in particular in inappropriate. Nobody is sabotaging anything... I'm not even sure how adding relevant tags as Amigao did could be perceived as sabotage, it doesn't add or remove anything from the body of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Mickie I'm having a hard time understanding your logic... You removed the warning from your talk page with the edit summary "Removed the malicious personal attack"[8] which doesn't make any sense, thats the exact same thing (minus the inappropriate heading) which you added here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo article history and presentation

Hello. As you see I have reverted you on Kosovo with a longwinded remark in the infobox. I have looked back but don't for the life of me have the patience to locate the precise edit where "uncontested territory" was added, but going back earlier, you can see that it was portrayed in several different ways (both separatist and Serbian territorial integrity viewpoints taking about two lines / Central Serbia / the rest of Serbia, etc.). In all of my years as an editor, I have only know this current arrangement, and I venture very little outside of Bulgaria articles. If it helps, it may pay you to know that discussion never once suggested it should be brazenly asserted "Kosovo borders Serbia", but rather how WP:PARITY can be demonstrated, and this was the best the community could come up with. I would like to provide you with this link that contains a remark from an administrator who in turn adduces discussion, so I am sure that the archives of this time (early 2015) will adequately explain the circumstance to you. Meanwhile, Red Slash has a long history of partisan editing on the Kosovo article, constantly trying to force the article to present the Kosovo-separatist outlook. I don't recommend you follow his example here. If you believe it is time to change something, I suggest use the talk page because I guarantee you there will be bucketloads of editors who respond. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All of the sources agree that Kosovo borders Serbia, this is true even if one holds that Kosovo is part of Serbia the difference there would be the internal vs external nature of the border. If as you say a consensus exists then you're actually going to need to track it down to invoke it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hang on a second. It depends on source. Those which treat Kosovo as an independent country say "Kosovo borders Serbia", but not those which observe Serbia's territorial integrity. They say that it borders Central Serbia. Besides, it is not for one to determine his own interpretation of the "sources" and make bold edits or bold restorations. Your proposed change, whether based on right or wrong information, needs to be adduced on the talk page, and in particular, how you believe you are satisfying WP:PARITY in light of the fact that more than 50% of the globe recognises Serbia's territorial integrity of Kosovo. I gather consensus must have been taking place around the time I first felt comfortable enough to hit the edit button without embarrassing myself over my ability to write in English (Jan 2015). I'm happy to have a look. If I find it, I will get back. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

"50% of the globe recognises Serbia's territorial integrity of Kosovo" is irrelevant, why bring it up? We care what WP:RS say not countries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

All right so you have edited since 2018. You're wrong about RS however. RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints. Where presentation is the bone of contention as is the case here, the quintessential factor is WP:PARITY. We don't just parrot what RS claim. So-called "reliable sources" can make reference to tyrants, despots and can qualify leaders who frustrate their worldview as "evil", but we don't get to add such qualifiers and change monikers simply based on the fact reliable sources use the terminology. Besides, I daren't say it was probably mentioned in the discussions anyhow. If I were in your situation and confident as you are, I would be requesting a discussion at the talk page right now. Make your proposal, and each of us will present an iVote with an associated comment. --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You understand that parity is short for "Parity of sources," right? We don't take unreliable sources into consideration at all. The viewpoints of editors is immaterial, its the views expressed in reliable sources we care about. I'm not sure that the article talk page is the right place to educate you about wikipedia basics... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The day I need education from you is the day they read my obituary. And believe you me, if I ever feel I need enlightening from you, you'll be the first to know. I'm not going to repeat what RS stands for, so my reply to your above comment is to refer you to my last post here. In the meantime, if you feel somebody forgot something, you are welcome to inspect the discussion since I have now located it. I'm gone for the night. I have to drive to the north of England now with a delivery for 6am. Night-night. --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

You said you would find a consensus, thats not a consensus. If you don't want to be educated thats fine, but "RS comes into play where two editors present diametrically opposing viewpoints." just isn't how it works, editors aren't allowed to present viewpoints in articles thats aren't supported by RS. That would be WP:OR or fiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, if we do want to base our work on what RS say... CMD (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Very well if you want to play games. Reliable sources say that Kosovo is disputed and that more than 50% of the globe recognises Serbia's territorial integrity of the region. Now, if you have any ideas about satisfying WP:PARITY then I am all ears. Until then, I'm done with this conversation. --Edin balgarin (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Edin balgarin: I can't find *any* reliable sources which refer to the border in the way in which you wish the lead to, if you could provide them I would be very grateful. Note that I'm not asking for sources which say that Kosovo is disputed, I'm asking for sources which support using that specific language as the result of such a dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your edit summary of "SMACK" when reverting that IP vandals edits. I don't know why but I found that extremely funny. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Balkans and Eastern Europe

Perfunctory notice:

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Also, please bear in mind that Kosovo has a 1 revert per 24 hours restriction. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: thanks for the note on the 1RR, I haven't dipped more than a toe into the Balkans space yet but I can see why that would be necessary. On an unrelated side note I'm not entirely satisfied with editing in the China-Taiwan, Arab-Israeli, and Balkan/Eastern Europe topic areas... I've been planning to get heavily into gender identity and the intersection of race and intelligence, those must be safe topics right? (joke) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

At least you have the good sense not to editing in pro-wrestling or beauty pageants! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, Crikey, are you telling me that those seemingly inert subjects compel more sanctioning and blocking than Balkan subjects?! :)))) --Edin balgarin (talk) 21:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hilarious self notification of contentious topic area

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in Michael Jackson. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question, why does Michael Jackson have discretionary sanctions? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you had to deal with that, much love and respect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Meatpuppet farm?

You get an awful lot of "critisism". Are most of these CCP meatpuppet trolls? BilCat (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I get a shocking amount of press in certain circles [9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if that "writer" was in Vietnam today? Hmmm. I hope China is paying him well. BilCat (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Fowdy is paid by not only by the CCP but also the Putin regime. I know because he writes on the RT site as an op-ed editor. While you could gain access to it, had a DISQUS forum where I posted daily against the Putin trolls. My name there is Colin Crusty. --Thelostranger (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Kosovo not listed as country

Hi. My belief is that it is high time we got Kosovo out of the dark ages of the past and realize that reliable sources say it is a country. I'm with you all the way on the border with Serbia issue, but also feel there is little point calling it a border unless we prioritize Kosovo's sovereignty from the first line, 'a country'. If we can show that the 'disputed' thing is a WP:FRINGE then it can go down to third, maybe fourth paragraph. Most young people just see Kosovo as a country and don't concern themselves that its northern and eastern neighbour does not recognize it. Much like Pakistan does not recognize Israel. Who cares?? :)) I reckon that we can reduce the effect of 'disputed territory' the we have pulled the rug out from under the desperation of people crying out 'uncontested territory' and all else to that effect. --Thelostranger (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In most places on Wikipedia it appears that we describe it as a country because our sources invariably do. TBH outside of a few pages I don't think theres actually a lot that needs to be done here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know. But in many of the more prominent places like List of sovereign states, it is relegated due to the pro-Serb POV which is that Kosovo is 'disputed'. You seem to have a lot of good standing and influence. I reckon a nice little RfC set up in more places, and we'll push out the final resistance to the reliable sources. --Thelostranger (talk) 09:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

These things happen slowly, I wouldn't worry about List of sovereign states... Its an OR garbage fire with questionable utility and encyclopedic value to begin with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[10]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)