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

Avoiding misunderstanding

Hi there. I am assuming you were intending to be more theoretical than directed in this diff, and you were also intending to refer to a hypothetical situation you set up rather than an something that actually occurred. However given the short discussion that had taken place prior to your initial comment, that comment might come across as more directed and personal than you probably intended. To avoid this potential misunderstanding, I would very much appreciate if you would strike the portions of your comments in the linked discussion that make statements about the potential competence or maliciousness of any editors (hypothetical or otherwise). All the best. —siroχo 02:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No thank you. In this instance I will not strike based on a vague "potential misunderstanding." The comment isn't directed at you, are you contending that those hypothetical views proposed by the other editor were not in fact hypothetical but were an accurate paraphrasing of your views? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank for taking a look, I appreciate the consideration at least. —siroχo 03:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

For what its worth I hadn't even read your comments when I read Alexis Jazz's comment and they made it seem like it was a commonly held position which I found boggling (as did another editor). I will also refer you to this edit[1] which I will quote here: "Exactly... I wish incompetence wasn't such a loaded term for some, I know I've done some damn incompetent things and am grateful to those who chose to educate me. Incompetence per say isn't a behavior problem, a pattern of failing to improve (that is to become competent) is." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I can understand and appreciate your point of view, and I recognize a valid and common "direct" style of communication that can often be misinterpreted as "directed" communication, even when not intended as such. I honestly don't want such misunderstandings to occur because it doesn't really help anyone.

As for the topic of that discussion, I think there is a fair bit of discussion at cross purposes there. I don't think anyone in that conversation had ill intent, and I also think everyone in that conversation was "correct" in their own purpose. Unfortunately, when people have both different communication styles and different purposes, there is an unfortunate possibility of misunderstanding, and resolving such a discussion can end up quite difficult. —siroχo 03:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Rod of Iron Ministries has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rod of Iron Ministries. Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rod of Iron Ministries has been accepted

Rod of Iron Ministries, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Horse Eye's Back. Thank you for your work on China National Fisheries Corporation. User:Seawolf35, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice job! Thanks for creating!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Seawolf35}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Seawolf35 (talk - email) 00:31, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick note

You made an edit, I reverted, and per BRD you should address that on the talk page. But you reverted again, that's where the edit warring starts. And your comments at RSN were somewhat disingenuous and so not helpful. I'm just looking for sincere evaluations of those three sources (hence the tags), not a dispute, which I why I didn't remove the entry. I'm not looking for commemts on other entries, editors are free to start their own discussions on any of other entries if they like. Thank you - wolf 15:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: You made an edit[2]... I reverted[3]... If you wanted to follow the optional BRD process that would have been the time. Please don't try to spin history to your benefit, its of no use when there is a public history and a less charitable editor might accuse you of lying. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, I not looking for a fight here, I'm really not. (I don't have the energy for it.) I know we've disagreed in the past (but I think we've agreed on some things as well), anyway the point is, I found what I believe to be real issues with these refs, and I'm just looking for additonal reviews with sincere feedback. That's all. I have no agenda here except what's best for the article. Once this is resolved one way or 'tother, I'm going to go through all the other entries and their sourcing as well. I see that sofrep has been pulled, it's possible that some other sources are probematic as well. Anyway, have a nice day. - wolf 04:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a fight, just an apology. I don't think anyone appreciates when people say derogatory things which aren't true about them. I didn't choose to ignore BRD, I was not being disingenuous, I was not being unhelpful, and I was not being insincere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Quick Query

I don't love what I see from JPS in the diffs provide. Can you say what you love the least in those five dffs? Anything you would want me to redact? Cool if the answer is, "I don't have time for this nonsense." Just wanted to make sure I'm not missing anything because that kind of comment tends to make me curious.

jps (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries, always happy to explain myself. Its the lashing out in frustration, I get that you're frustrated and I strongly empathize with that frustration but the edit summaries are lacking in collegiality (a sin of which I myself am in no way free). I also don't like the dangling of threats (even if they are not the sort of threats we disallow), either take them to the noticeboard or don't but don't taunt them with the possibility. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

@ජපස: would have been way cooler if I said "Begone with your mishegoss I'm up to my eyebrows in overcommitment" but you deserve a real answer and I don't want you to worry that I meant something much more damning. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Banish me to the hinterlands if this causes more grief, but here are two additional thoughts:

• lashing out *cringe*... where do you see that? I don't feel very WP:MASTODONy, but understand that sometimes things don't appear the way I think they do.
• As for threatening to take people to the noticeboards, that's an interesting take. "Just do it (or don't do it), but don't threaten people." Thing is, I'm fairly allergic to noticeboards because I have very limited confidence in powers-that-be. I would rather work things out and I think that telling the other party that things have gotten so bad that I'm considering noticeboard filing is fair warning. I actually would have been okay if things settled down in that situation. Though I have severe reservations about the editorial bent that is the impact of the new article and the framings presented, I also think that the Origin of COVID-19 article deserves some cleanup and there may actually be some stuff in the new article that is worth salvaging. I guess I could just never tell people that I'm thinking of taking them to WP:AE. It may be that I've spent so long in the culture of WP:CTOP requiring notifications that I think it deserves fair warning. Hell, I appreciate it if people warn me. Anyway, you think I should redact the perceived "threats"? jps (talk) 23:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Look, I don't think I need to explain to an editor of your experience why "Removing some *real problematic* POV-pushing of the uncertainty monster (that bleeds quite naturally into WP:FALSEBALANCE trolling)." isn't optimal. I don't think that you need to redact anything, our policy against threats has an exemption for exactly this sort of thing (good faith discussion of the potential to elevate to a noticeboard), I just personally don't love it. TLDR I wouldn't feel comfortable endorsing everything you did, but I don't feel comfortable seriously condemning any of it. Certainly should never have been taken where it was, nothing actionable there outside of perhaps a boomerang. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay. That's cool. I wish there was a button for: "My commentary is about the impact of this wording as it is read by the general public: it is not a judgement of the personal character of they who wrote it." That's what I wish could be interpreted each time I try to make points like that, but, well, WP wouldn't be WP without people complaining about the staunch way we treat certain topics. Criticism taken on board! Over and out! jps (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)