User talk:Horse Eye's Back: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:08, 25 July 2022 editHorse Eye's Back (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users52,275 edits →July 2022: organization← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:55, 17 January 2025 edit undoHorse Eye's Back (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users52,275 edits →Checking on this
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Talk header}}		{{Talk header}}
	{{bots\|deny=DPL bot}}		{{bots\|deny=DPL bot}}
	{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis\|archiveprefix=User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/\|format=Y/F\|age=1000\|archivebox=yes\|box-advert=yes}}		{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis\|archiveprefix=User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/\|format=Y/F\|age=1000\|archivebox=yes\|box-advert=yes}}
			== Notification of administrators without tools ==
			{\| style="background-color:#fcffdd; width:100%; border:3px solid #fceb92; margin:1em auto 1em auto;"
			\|-
			\| style="vertical-align:middle; padding:1px;" \| ]
			\| style="vertical-align:middle; padding:1px; text-align:center;" \| '''Greetings, Horse Eye's Back'''. You are receiving this notification because '']'' to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by '']'' outlined at '''''<span class="nowrap">]</span>'''''. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated '']'':<br />{{ulist\|]\|]}}
			\|-
			\| colspan="2" style="font-size: small;" \|
			*''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, ''']'''''.
			\|} <!-- From Template:Administrator without tools/Notice --> ]] (]) 21:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

			== December 2024 ==
	==] nomination of ]==
	]
	{{Quote box\|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>\|width=20%\|align=right}}
	A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read ] and ] for more information.

			Hello! I don't know what you did to get att the photos in the wrong places (plus 2 photos from one and the same cafe!), but I wish you'd correct it. I cannot figure out how to do it, though I've been logged in since 2008. Please look at the results of your edits when done! This was certainly not an improvement. ] (]) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
	If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink\|Special:Log\|qs=type=delete&page=Dead+Air+Silencers\|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-spam-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 17:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
			:Sounds like you have ownership issues there buddy (there is no wrong place for a photo)... The technical effect is an excerpt, I think thats what is confusing you (you're not going to be able to see the text you want to change when you go into the raw because its not there). ] (]) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:{{Reply\|SergeWoodzing}} would you be so good as to point out the two images from the same cafe? ] (]) 17:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::No need for personal attacks here, and a condescending word like ''buddy'' only makes that far worse.
			::Last time I looked there was also a historical photo of the "Logos Bros Central Cafe, Blackall, Queensland" which now is no longer there. Maybe you removed it wherever that is that the rest of is don't have access ("you're not going to be able to see the text you want to change when you go into the raw because its not there")?
			::Photos which are in the right sections (such as the old Swedish family) are preferred to their being strewn across an arcticle with less layout relevance. --] (]) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You start with "No need for personal attacks here" and then you proceed to make wild and unfounded claims about me having secret access and being sneaky and abusive. Calm down, this is an issue with your competence and you shouldn't be making your own lack of competence my problem. That being said I believe that I have solved any problems you have have, if I haven't let me know and I will be happy to. ] (]) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::This edit is just confusing, it looks like to try and solve the issue on Coffee Culture you went and disrupted ]? ] (]) 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::The issues on the article are for that talk page. Your direct personal specific accusation to me of "ownership issues" is a clear-cut case of personal attack. Again, also, please look at the results of your edits when done! You might see that something got screwed up without anyone else having to complain. --] (]) 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::Sir, on the talk page you speculated that my edits were promotional... And unless I'm missing something this entire conversation is about issues on the article so why did you even post here then? ] (]) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::You do actually appear to be engaged in something akin to ownership too, you added the photo of the old Swedish family you're now bent out of shape about. Ownership would explain the agressive and hyperbolic language you use, hard to understand otherwise (I assume you aren't normally a jerk). ] (]) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::Warning stands about your accusation of ownership as a clear personal attack, along with the word "buddy" as an extra uncivil little spice there. What you are adding only makes matters worse and the warning even more appropriate: "bent out of shape ... agressive and hyperbolic language you use ... aren't normally a jerk". I respectfully suggest you adhere to WP policy on civility from now on. Nobody in this conversation has attacked you in any way.
			::::::Re "promo" you still have two photos from the same café ]. Hard to understand why. I'm giving you a chance to answer that question civilly, w/o any personal slurs. --] (]) 10:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::::: No slurs have been used, and unless I'm missing something there are only two people in this conversation so saying "Nobody in this conversation" not "I" is weirdly obfuscatory and seems to imply consensus which doesn't exist (be careful not to do that). If you added the photo of the old Swedish family then the ownership concerns turned out to be valid. I was not the person who added those photos of the cafe there, why are you asking me and accusing me of promotion? Note that you are also apparently accusing me of promoting a business that as far as I can tell folded in the 1990s. ] (]) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

	== ~~Consecration~~ of ~~Russia~~ ==		== Happy Holidays ==

			{\| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;"
	Why is talking about prayers recommended by Our Lady of Fatima non-encyclopedic in a topic about "conversion" of Russia? ] (]) 07:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
			\|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" \| ]
	: There is no independent coverage I can find, coverage in a Catholic newspaper isn't going to cut it. Prayer recommendations aren't really encyclopedic and just to be clear the topic of Consecration of Russia isn't the conversion of Russia to christianity its the fringe religious concept know as the "Consecration of Russia." ] (]) 16:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
			\|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" \| '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
	::So you have to remove all the Catholic topics in the entire Misplaced Pages because most of their sources are from Catholic sources! ] (]) 12:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
			\|-
	:::How do you get there? Please review ] ] (]) 17:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
			\|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" \|
	== Nomination of ] for deletion ==
			----
	<div class="afd-notice">
			'''Hello Horse Eye's Back, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
	<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ''']''' is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or whether it should be ].
			] (]) 23:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			''{{resize\|96%\|Spread the love by adding {{tls\|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
	The article will be discussed at ] until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
			\|} ] (]) 23:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			== RFC Notice ==
	Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
	<!-- Template:Afd notice --></div> ] (]) 02:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

			Hello, this notice is for everyone who took part in the ]. I have started a new RfC on the subject. If you would like to participate please follow this link: {{slink\|Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not\|RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations}}. ] (]) 01:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	== Absurd ideas about the rules ==
			: Thank you for letting me know that this discussion is occuring, I will likely make my way over there at some point. ] (]) 16:15, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
	First of all, you are not an admin to decide on 3RR you opinion has no value beyond this.

			== January 2025 ==
	Second, Regarding your post on my talk page:
	:== Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons ==
	:] Please do not add unreferenced or ] information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about ], as you did to ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-biog2 --> ] (]) 17:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
	::That's a draft, not in mainspace. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
	The draft article 2 sentences is covered in the sources mentioned.
	In other words, you are completely wasting my time and I am quite annoyed that I have to justify anything I do with you. ] (]) 19:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
	:] "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page." Any means any... including main, wiki, user, draft, and talk. All are covered by our BLP policy. ] (]) 19:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

			] Before adding a category to an article, as you did to ], please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Misplaced Pages's ]. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's ] content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. ''Please review ] 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'' <!-- Template:uw-badcat --> ] 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	== stop editing the draft article ==
	It is a draft. Quit the bullying. ] (]) 22:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
	:] applies to drafts. ] (]) 22:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
	::This is not a BLP issue. you bully ] (]) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
	:::Of course it is, the subject is a living person. ] (]) 22:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

			: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 ]. ] 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	==3RR warning on draft article warning ==
			::{{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 Misplaced Pages'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" ] (]) 17:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions
			:::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 ]. 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.] 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::That isn't how consensus works. Misusing a user warning template doesn't encourage consensus seeking, its just abusive. ] (]) 04:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::I agreed with you that the template wasn't a great choice. How about assuming some good faith instead of throwing insults? ] 05:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::No insults have been thrown, what are you talking about? ] (]) 06:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Calling my use of a template abusive is an insult in my book. ] 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::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? ] (]) 18:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::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. ] 22:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::::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. ] (]) 22:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::::::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. ] 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

			==] has been nominated for merging==
	] (]) 22:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
	:"See below for exemptions... Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." ] ] (]) 00:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	== I have sent you a note about a page you started ==
			==] has been nominated for renaming==

			<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
	Hello, Horse Eye's Back

			== Checking on this ==
	Thank you for creating ].

			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 ] 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. ] (]) 17:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	], while examining this page as a part of our ], had the following comments:
			:::{{Reply\|Iljhgtn}} It appears to be a ] 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. ] (]) 18:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

			::::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? ] (]) 18:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{Bq\|1=Thanks for the article!}}
			:::::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). ] (]) 18:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

	To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{code\|<nowiki>{{Re\|</nowiki>SunDawn<nowiki>}}</nowiki>}}. Please remember to sign your reply with {{code\|<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>}} .

	<small>(Message delivered via the ] tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)</small><!-- Template:Sentnote-NPF -->

	] ] 01:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
	:You're welcome! ] (]) 02:19, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Third Opinion ==

	A Third Opinion has been requested for an interpretation of reliable sources on Pray and Work. ] (]) 19:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Taiwan foreign relations - Donetsk and Luhansk ==
	The whole point of adding that paragraph about Donetsk and Luhansk, despite it being unsourced, was that I wasn't sure whether to put these two territories into the article in the first place. According to the main article "List of states with limited recognition", it is indeed necessary to add these two territories. It is obvious that Taiwan has relations with neither Donetsk nor Luhansk, and that Taiwan recognises the territories as belonging to Ukraine. There should be sources available about Taiwan denouncing Russia's recognition of the two territories as sovereign states. If Donetsk and Luhansk are deemed to be unsuitable for the main article, then there's no need to add them to this subsection of Taiwan's foreign relations article. ] (]) 02:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
	:Don't add unsourced material. End of story. ] (]) 16:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

	== A discussion taking place ==

	A discussion taking place may be of interest to you.
	The corresponding material at ] has been removed until consensus is reached at the Open Discussion page. DO NOT restore the material until agreement fully in your favor has been reached.
	Regards, ] (]) 07:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

	== Merging of ] into ] ==

	I added some illustrations and text to the latter article, as well as wikilinks leading to and from it, please check it now. What do you think about merging the quite detailed, but too specifically named article (all spotting rifles are sub-caliber training devices but not vice versa), into a more general topic which you marked as possibly not notable? Here are some sources which may demonstrate notability and in generally help to understand the wideness of the topic in general: https://www.rifleman.org.uk/Morris_Aiming_Tube.html, https://talesfromthesupplydepot.blog/2020/05/09/two-pounder-sub-calibre-training-round, https://www.warrelics.eu/forum/world-firearms/british-sub-caliber-training-devise-1971, https://armamentresearch.com/2x35-sub-calibre-training-device-used-as-amr-in-syria, https://books.google.com/books?id=C9QsLVcm474C&pg=PA393, https://www.police1.com/police-products/firearms/training/articles/training-with-sub-caliber-firearms-m79uie4uyJJ7pps1 ] (]) 11:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
	:Unfortunately not all spotting rifles are sub-caliber training devices. However thank you for the sources. ] (]) 19:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

	== July 2022 ==
	] You currently appear to be engaged in an ] according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

	Points to note:
	# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
	# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
	If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
	:You're at three reverts... I'm at two reverts... And you're warning me? Classy. ] (]) 18:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

	== excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary ==
	user loves to provide excessive, uncesscary, redudant, and unessacary additions to articles. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 18:55, 17 January 2025

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 Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

December 2024

Hello! I don't know what you did here to get att the photos in the wrong places (plus 2 photos from one and the same cafe!), but I wish you'd correct it. I cannot figure out how to do it, though I've been logged in since 2008. Please look at the results of your edits when done! This was certainly not an improvement. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you have ownership issues there buddy (there is no wrong place for a photo)... The technical effect is an excerpt, I think thats what is confusing you (you're not going to be able to see the text you want to change when you go into the raw because its not there). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@SergeWoodzing: would you be so good as to point out the two images from the same cafe? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

No need for personal attacks here, and a condescending word like buddy only makes that far worse.

Last time I looked there was also a historical photo of the "Logos Bros Central Cafe, Blackall, Queensland" which now is no longer there. Maybe you removed it wherever that is that the rest of is don't have access ("you're not going to be able to see the text you want to change when you go into the raw because its not there")?

Photos which are in the right sections (such as the old Swedish family) are preferred to their being strewn across an arcticle with less layout relevance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You start with "No need for personal attacks here" and then you proceed to make wild and unfounded claims about me having secret access and being sneaky and abusive. Calm down, this is an issue with your competence and you shouldn't be making your own lack of competence my problem. That being said I believe that I have solved any problems you have have, if I haven't let me know and I will be happy to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit is just confusing, it looks like to try and solve the issue on Coffee Culture you went and disrupted Greek café culture in Australia? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

The issues on the article are for that talk page. Your direct personal specific accusation to me of "ownership issues" is a clear-cut case of personal attack. Again, also, please look at the results of your edits when done! You might see that something got screwed up without anyone else having to complain. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Sir, on the talk page you speculated that my edits were promotional... And unless I'm missing something this entire conversation is about issues on the article so why did you even post here then? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You do actually appear to be engaged in something akin to ownership too, you added the photo of the old Swedish family you're now bent out of shape about. Ownership would explain the agressive and hyperbolic language you use, hard to understand otherwise (I assume you aren't normally a jerk). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Warning stands about your accusation of ownership as a clear personal attack, along with the word "buddy" as an extra uncivil little spice there. What you are adding only makes matters worse and the warning even more appropriate: "bent out of shape ... agressive and hyperbolic language you use ... aren't normally a jerk". I respectfully suggest you adhere to WP policy on civility from now on. Nobody in this conversation has attacked you in any way.

Re "promo" you still have two photos from the same café here. Hard to understand why. I'm giving you a chance to answer that question civilly, w/o any personal slurs. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No slurs have been used, and unless I'm missing something there are only two people in this conversation so saying "Nobody in this conversation" not "I" is weirdly obfuscatory and seems to imply consensus which doesn't exist (be careful not to do that). If you added the photo of the old Swedish family then the ownership concerns turned out to be valid. I was not the person who added those photos of the cafe there, why are you asking me and accusing me of promotion? Note that you are also apparently accusing me of promoting a business that as far as I can tell folded in the 1990s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!

Hello Horse Eye's Back, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025.
Happy editing,
Abishe (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

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: Misplaced Pages talk:What Misplaced Pages is not § RfC on WP:NOT and British Airways destinations. Sunnya343 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Mason_Garrison 13:12, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages:EPON. Mason_Garrison 13:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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.Mason_Garrison 00:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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

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

Calling my use of a template abusive is an insult in my book. Mason_Garrison 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. Mason_Garrison 22:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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. Mason_Garrison 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

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. Mason_Garrison 13:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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. Mason_Garrison 13:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)