User talk:Horse Eye's Back

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2020/September; 2020/October; 2020/November; 2020/December; 2021/January; 2021/February; 2021/March; 2021/April; 2021/May; 2021/June; 2021/July; 2021/August; 2021/September; 2021/October; 2021/November; 2021/December; 2022/January; 2022/February; 2022/March; 2022/April; 2022/May; 2022/June; 2022/July; 2022/August; 2022/September; 2022/October; 2022/November; 2022/December; 2023/January; 2023/February; 2023/March; 2023/April; 2023/May; 2023/June; 2023/July; 2023/September; 2023/October; 2023/November; 2023/December; 2024/January; 2024/February; 2024/March; 2024/April; 2024/May; 2024/June; 2024/July; 2024/August; 2024/September; 2024/October; 2024/November; 2024/December;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is Horse Eye's Back's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Horse Eye's Back. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Paper9oll Cremastra
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Notice

Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the 2023 RfC on lists of airline destinations. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know that this discussion is occuring, I will likely make my way over there at some point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:National Defense Medical Center, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please review WP:Eponcat before making more categories like this. And please make sure to fully parent the categories you do make, like Category:The Heritage Foundation publications needs to be in more than one tree ^SMason_Garrison 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to repair the removal of categories, but please stop removing categories from the main article. "Core cat" is not a thing. Please review Wikipedia:EPON. ^SMason_Garrison 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: that seems to be one of the three options we are given. This doesn't seem like the right template, the subject of the article really belongs in the category that I specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added already existed and was supported by the article's verifiable content. Did you use the wrong template? Remember that we are instructed "Editors should decide by consensus which solution makes most sense for a category tree." not "Smasongarrison does what the fuck they want" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I picked the template that was closest. You're right that it wasn't a very good fit. However, you really need to assume good faith, instead of "Smasongarrison does what the fuck they want". Please review Wikipedia:EPON. Because the norm is not to gut the contents. The consensus is to include categories for the article as you can see in the other categories like this. In the future, I really suggest not starting out with "Smasongarrison does what the fuck they want" because it really doesn't encourage consensus seeking.^SMason_Garrison 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't how consensus works. Misusing a user warning template doesn't encourage consensus seeking, its just abusive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with you that the template wasn't a great choice. How about assuming some good faith instead of throwing insults? ^SMason_Garrison 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No insults have been thrown, what are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calling my use of a template abusive is an insult in my book. ^SMason_Garrison 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How would you describe it? Objectively it is template abuse, thats what we call harassing someone with an improper template. Thats also not an insult, its just wild to call someone out for abusing you and their response is "Don't insult me." Like bro what? Instead of an apology you continue to attack me? How does that work? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your use of the terms "abuse" and "harassing " and "attack" over the use of an imperfect template is excessive. It assumes an uncharitable interpretation and ill intent. I've asked you repeatedly to assume good faith. You asked me to explain what I meant by insults, so I answered in good faith. I already said that I agreed with you that the template wasn't a great choice.

You're the one who keeps using escalating language. The template wasn't ideal, but it wasn't that far off. My concern was about the removal of categories instead of the addition of categories. I'd rather have a productive conversation about EPON categories. ^SMason_Garrison 22:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving just one category seems to be one of the three allowed options. There is no removal of categories, the tree shape just gets shifted around. The template isn't close, there is no reason to warn me for what I did because its well within the allowed bounds. Next time I suggest that you open a talk page discussion, although you will note if you look at my edit history that I have shifted to your prefered style (it seems to be as accepted as the other two but may cause less friction). If you're going to have this discussion with someone again can I suggest not starting off with a user warning template that doesn't fit? Its going to derail the point you actually want to make. I'm sorry that this hasn't been a productive conversation for you but you're in my house (well talk page) so I will tell you how your behavior makes me feel in the hopes that you will be kinder and gentler in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's technically allowable, but my point was that's not the norm for the organizational categories. Again, I apologize that you felt accosted by the template. I thought it was sufficiently close, but you are right that we're on your talk page. I do encourage you to take your own advice and I'll keep it in mind as I figure out how to make my own template warning message that's a better fit. ^SMason_Garrison 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: You have said that you posted a message which was not appropriate, or, in your words, not "a very good fit" because you thought it was "the template that was closest". Messages should always be appropriate, and posting an unsuitable message is unhelpful. If there happens to be a templated message which fits, then you may like to save yourself a bit of typing by using it rather than writing a message by hand. If, however, no ready made templated message is right, then it is not acceptable to post one which is wrong, just because all the others are even worse. Templated messages exist as an aid to reducing the amount of typing we have to do on those occasions when one of them conveniently fits the bill: they do not remove the obligation to make sure that messages are 100% appropriate, and if none of them is appropriate then it is necessary to put in the small amount of effort needed to write a message which is appropriate. JBW (talk) 11:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that you're trying to encourage better use of templating, but I don't think reopening a 3 week old conversation that had been deescalated is helpful. Do you know if there are any good examples of how I can make my own template warning? That I'd love to learn about so that I can create a relevant template. ^SMason_Garrison 14:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't create a warning template for this because you're not actually giving a warning... The other person isn't doing anything against P+G or MoS they just aren't doing it your preferred way. If it's technically allowable then warning/templating is abusive. Thats a situation where you just want to start a conversation, but if the other person doesn't want to do it your way you have to respect that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: Since my message was addressed to you, I could instead have posted it to your talk page, with a courtesy ping to Horse Eye's Back, since it would refer a discussion in which they took part, and a link to this page to provide context for anyone else seeing my comment. From what you say, you would probably have preferred that, but I think it is usually better to keep related messages together, to make things easier to follow.

I'm afraid that saying that I am "trying to encourage better use of templating" is really missing my point: a significant part of what I was trying to do was point out that "templating", as you call it, is very often not the right thing to do at all. JBW (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got your point. When I said "trying to encourage better use of templating" I also considered not using a template as part of that. If you don't want to help point me in the right direction to solve the other part of the problem, that's fine; I was trying to address all parts of the issue being raised, which included not having a perfectly matching template. *shrug* ^SMason_Garrison 00:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pennsylvania Dutch restaurants has been nominated for merging

Category:Pennsylvania Dutch restaurants has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mint food has been nominated for renaming

Category:Mint food has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checking on this

You said this in a recent RfC, "So you agree with Iljhgtn's conspiracy theory that this was the purposeful result of pushing bias not an error?" which caught me off guard. I believe you are generally a level headed and agreeable editor, I was surprised to see you characterize my comments in such derisive language and tone. I believe in giving the benefit of the doubt and WP:AGF whenever possible though, so I'd ask for you to clarify what your intent behind this comment was which I found to be hurtful and unexpected. Iljhgtn (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Iljhgtn: It appears to be a conspiracy theory about a living person (you seem to allege that the author participated in a conspiracy with the rest of Jacobin to misstate facts to push a POV), if you have a source I'd love to see it but otherwise its the blatant BLP violation which is hurtful and unexpected. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do you account for the editor's disregard for the facts when being corrected? Regardless of the forum in which the discussion took place? Iljhgtn (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, I look to the sources and if they don't provide an explanation thats the end of the story because of BLP... We aren't allowed to speculate about the motives and actions of living people. When it comes to BLP our options are constrained to those published by reliable sources. I also note your framing is already questionable... we don't actually know that the facts were disregarded, they could have just missed it (thats what the reliable sources suggest, they don't imply malice like you do). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

	Greetings, Horse Eye's Back. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: Dclemens1971
Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow. To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

Tol Bot (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Musk family, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a single mention to "natalist" or its derived terms here. And I wonder too whether this is a reliable source... You cannot take these conclusions just because they feel correct to you. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. As per WP:OR: "to state a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: Not seeing the OR, that seems pretty unambiguous "Errol has expressed natalist views, once commenting, "The only thing we are on Earth for is to reproduce." would you object to "Errol has expressed Christian views, once commenting, "The only thing we are on Earth for is to worship Jesus Christ." ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Errol has once commented, 'The only thing we are on Earth for is to reproduce.'" is the only thing I can come up with now. You cannot simply conclude this is "natalist" or "Christian". It's simply a commentary. If a reliable source states it's either natalist or Christian, then it should be included in the article for sure. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well if it isn't natalist or Christian what is it? What reasonable meaning do you take from those sentences? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to draw conclusions from the sources but to report them impartially. I would even say that, without this conclusion (which is original research), the passage lacks context (at least as a standalone paragraph) and should be removed, but I won't get into that. RodRabelo7 (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We are allowed to do interpretation, that isn't OR. The source can say "follower of Jesus" and we say "Christian" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Elez

The edit just before yours,pretty sure the “only fans” is a BLP violation. Doug Weller talk 19:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that was my conclusion as well, I removed it[1] but didn't take it up with the editor because they seemed to be an IP without any serious history. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Squatch347

User talk:Squatch347: Revision history - Wikipedia

I wanted to inform you that he blanked the page just 4 days after you raised concerns. Also, his use of the slur "transgenderism" in his edit summary throws some light on his behavior. Javier Milei - Wikipedia Theofunny (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate to see them messing around elsewhere but can't say I'm all that surprised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Hemings Revision History

Hello, I see that you reverted the revision I made to the Sally Hemings entry. The original version carried a particular framing that seemed to lead the reader to a particular conclusion. Specifically, the phrasing "there is no evidence that Jefferson sexually assaulted her, but..." is especially loaded. My effort in revising was to note that the subject is controversial, it is debated among historians, but avoid editorializing based on circumstantial details. Could you please share your feedback for why you reverted to what I, and many others, perceive as more accusatory language?

In my opinion, major phrasing decisions should be based on discussion, not just a single editor’s preference.

Thank you. Tha Carpenter (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That particular framing is the one used by the reliable sources, if you want to introduce other sources you are welcome to but there is a lot less debate among historians than you would think... The two camps are "definitely rape" and "technically rape" there isn't a "no rape" camp here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a "no rape" camp, as the reliable sources from the original language of the article state: "there is no evidence that Jefferson sexually assaulted her." Either Thomas Jefferson was definitively a rapist, or he wasn't. Since there is no evidence, it cannot be definitively concluded that he was. Leading readers to that conclusion without supporting evidence is misleading. In his time, he was operating within the framework of all known laws and would not have fit that modern definition.

By applying the social and legal lens of the late 20th/early 21st centuries to interpret this relationship, we risk obscuring the dynamics of the original situation. Sally Hemings, his deceased wife's half-sister, was not simply property whom he treated poorly. It is far more likely she was someone he cared for, though the nature of their relationship, by our standards today, is undeniably complicated.

You might counter with the argument that "the power dynamics or the notion of 'consent' for enslaved individuals wasn’t really a concept in the same way it is today." If this is the socio-political viewpoint you hold, that is understandable. However, what if in 200 years there is a Wikipedia article about me, critical of my practices as a meat eater? "Tha Carpenter, despite being an animal lover, was a vicious carnivore like many in his time, a practice that has been condemned due to its carbon-intensive impacts observed in the 21st century." Should I really be judged harshly by these standards, which didn’t exist in my time?

As such, we should reflect on historical figures with objectivity, carefully considering the context of their time as a significant variable in shaping their actions and choices. Tha Carpenter (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if thats how the reliable sources in 200 years cover it that is how we will cover it... I would also note that slavery was strongly condemned in Jefferson's time, not least of all by Jefferson (yes its a complicated story) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the desire to reflect how reliable sources cover a topic. However, my original concern was that this section, as written, suggests a conclusion that goes beyond any available evidence.

To retain neutrality, this entry should avoid presenting claims in a way that overtly leads readers to a particular interpretation—especially when reliable sources explicitly state there is no definitive proof.

This isn’t about pushing a narrative but ensuring the article remains factually precise and neutral.

So, to return to my inquiry, would you be open to improving the language to better reflect what is genuinely verifiable?

Thank you. Tha Carpenter (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section as written reflects the provided source, I think the way forward if you want one is to find additional sources that more closely match your own interpretation. I would also note that you appear to be conflating two different things... There is no definitive proof that Hemings and Jefferson had physical relations, but if they did she would have been too young to consent at the time (but definitely not his property, as it would have happened in France where she was free). You seem to be getting caught up on the slave thing, but even if she wasn't his slave she could not have consented. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]