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

WP:NPA

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on WP:RSN. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your behaviour is hostile per WP:CIVIL and contrary to WP:NPA. Arkenstrone (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Arkenstrone: if the man you've repeatedly claimed to be a subject matter expert, Bishop Cazenave, turns out not to exist we will be at ANI to discuss it. Promises of pursuing appropriate actions are not threats or personal attacks. I haven't in any way been uncivil, I've been extremely polite with you but my patience and the project's has its limits when it comes to pushing fringe sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

You most certainly have been uncivil, with threats of pursuing permanent banning etc. and for what? Your doubt in the existence of a Bishop whom you are having difficulty acquiring information about? That is entirely the wrong attitude to adopt on Wikipedia. You are not assuming good-faith as per WP:GOODFAITH. You could have, for example, simply put it to the community to see what the community could discover, instead of assuming malicious intent.

In any case, I have no compelling reason to doubt Bishop Cazenave exists (just not in the Roman Curia), and I haven't been "pushing" him. If he didn't exist, it would destroy Lavere's credibility and all his work. No author is that foolish, risking his entire reputation and career on such a scheme. I mentioned Bishop Cazenave in passing, that he provided a preface to Lavere's book, and so Lavere's book is not without some ecclessiastical support. That's all. You are the one attempting to turn it into some major focus, which it wasn't. The major focus is elsewhere: Lavere co-authoring similar material with other RS authors in the same year, as discussed on WP:RSN.

If you have some compelling reason to doubt Bishop Cazenave's existence, then by all means, follow up on it. But stop attributing your inability to acquire more information on him to another editors malicious intent or incompetency with threats of pursuing banning. That is a personal attack per WP:NPA.

I will not say anything more about it. Arkenstrone (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Its not a threat, its a promise to pursue appropriate wikipedia remedies. We are currently following up on a number of compelling reasons to doubt Bishop Cazenave's existence... And not a single source has been put forward which suggests he exists. This was a figure you compared to "Richard Feynman, Neils Bohr, or even Einstein" in terms of their impact on their field, what do you call that besides pushing him? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Belt and Road Initiative

I see that you reverted my edits to the Belt and Road Initiative page for being unsourced. When I expanded the list of participants, I added a comment in the page source indicating that sources for all countries without individual citations could be found in the citations at the end of the text paragraph. The sources that I used were the Council on Foreign Relations (a major Western foreign policy think tank, so presumably knowledgeable about these things), and a couple sources linked to the Chinese government, including an English-language page from Xinhua News Agency that lists times when a memorandum of understanding related to the Belt and Road Initiative was signed. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was adding unsourced material, and I will be more clear that these sources contain full listings of Belt and Road Initiative countries. I have also added a new citation of a Western project that tracks Belt and Road Initiative membership, in order to include multiple sources for the full membership list that are independent of the Chinese government. 2001:56A:F34B:5600:A558:EAC3:CC37:4B7C (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Its more important that we only include what high quality sources say than what we include be complete so to speak (so we shouldn't lean on Xinhua and random think tanks). I commend you for striving for completeness though, its nice to have if possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Would you do me a kindness?

Hi there @Horse Eye's Back,

Noticed you've got a bit of expertise on military units and people who've shaped them. My interest is at the high level, on the ways values and culture develop in these units.

I've done a draft on a behavioural scientist who appears to have a degree of impact on training of SF personnel in Australia: Draft talk:Jemma B King

Just wondered if you could put your eye over it. Mostly want to be sure I'm getting the language right.

Grateful for any time you might give it.

MatthewDalhousie (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Re-start?

Re: your recent edit, I do hear what you're saying. If I had it to do over again, I would have read more carefully the comment to which you replied here and made a comment more like this one, then dropped the topic. (I think it was the week elapsed between Atlantic306's comment and your reply that took me back more to first principles, but that isn't an excuse.)

From the tone of your recent replies, I feel as though I have put you off somehow and I'm not sure quite how. I have seen and respect your editing on culture war topics, and I wouldn't have thought that a difference of perspective over what an encyclopaedia should contain would result in as much annoyance as I have detected in your recent replies.

If it is just the fact that we have been taking past each other at some length that triggers that reaction - well, I get that that kind of interaction needs to be avoided and I think I see what I need to do to avoid putting you off in that way (though I've never understood why some editors feel that it is inappropriate to reply when they reply to you directly). But is there something else going on? In any event, what I would really hope we could do is just reset and start again. What do you think? Newimpartial (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to think about this and for bringing it here instead of as another comment on the article talk page. Its the repetition thats put me off and puts me in mind of bludgeoning, you repeat the same point multiple times in multiple places so the discussion becomes repetitive and overburdened. Even the best point is stretched by such repetition. In order for the collaborative process to work you need to give other editors space to communicate... Yes its important they they communicate with you... But its equally important that they communicate without you... If that makes any sense. Its important to keep in mind that other editors will be reading through the conversation and so we really have a duty to make the discussion succinct. Do a better job at that and I think we can continue to collaborate productively. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

So I get that people can read the same discussion differently, and I also get that one of my typical neurodivergent traits is that I repeat something with variation when my interlocutor doesn't seem to understand what I've said. But as to it being equally important that they communicate without you, I can't really see how I blocked that from happening, in the discussion we're talking about - and I have tried to look at this in a detached way.

Counts of my comments in three sections

In the section "Solve the problem directly", 12/14 of my comments were replies to direct replies to my comments - and one of the remaining two was a reply to a revised proposal derived in repose to my input, among others'. In the section, "RfC proposal", again, 12/14 of my comments were replies to direct replies to my comments - and one of the other two, again, was a reply to a revised proposal derived again in response to my input, among others'. In the current section "Finalize proposed changes", I count 9/12 of my comments as replies to direct replies to my comments, with two of the three remaining as replies to revised proposals derived, in part, in respnse to my input. So as far as I can tell, in my 40 comments over three sections, only three of them were not either replies to comments explicitly directed at me, or comments directed at new drafts made reflecting my input, among others'.

Certainly there have been times in the past when I inserted myself into dialog between other editors, but I really didn't do that this time. And many of my comments in those sections were direct replies to questions I was asked by other editors. I regard those as very productive discussion sections, in fact, except for the places where you and I talked past each other. I get that I'm often the opposite of succinct, which is why I've evolved towards the style of collapsing portions of my own comments. But aside from using that style better, and limiting my replies to your replies to me, I'm not sure what more I can do that would head off your annoyance in future. This was a discussion in multiple stages, where the proposed text was changed repeatedly through thoughtful dialog (for the most part). I guess the other thing I could try is simply ignore things that other editors raise that might be off-topic, but engaging to do that might involve years of therapy and still not actually happen. :) Newimpartial (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective I established a dialogue with Atlantic306 and you then inserted yourself into it. I would suggest writing succinctly in the first place so that you do not have to collapse your comments. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)