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 2025/January

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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? ^SMason_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. ^SMason_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. ^SMason_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. ^SMason_Garrison 00:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• @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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

  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)

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)

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.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Even that is pretty borderline, particularly for a BLP. Introducing new designations not present in any source is definitely OR. If it’s so clearly natalist and should be labeled as such, then a reliable source will have done so. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In no way is that borderline. We've never had a "the source has to use the exact word" policy or guideline (especially when its one without a generally negative connotation like natalist). This discussion had also naturally petered out, please treat it as closed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Owen× ☎ 20:52, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Thai beauty

Hello, Horse Eye's Back. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Thai beauty".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

If you are willing to talk by recorded voice or video, or you can recruit anyone who is, then I would enjoy talking to anyone about Wikimedian in Residence roles or COI. There has never been a recorded interview like that. You seem to have questions as do many others and the topic is of general interest. Thanks for exploring the topic. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not your guy... I primarily edit articles about international relations, religion, politics, crime, and wealthy/powerful people with a particular emphasis on topics that are a combination of most if not all of those. I would not be able to do so if my voice and/or face were publically connected to this account, as it is I reveive a threat every week or so and multiple death threats a year. That said it would be a fascinating discussion, I'm sure that your own experience is not lacking in threats or whatnot given what an excellent and prolific public communicator you are, I've heard you on NPR and you are very articulate and passionate about what you do, but I highly doubt that you could make the edits I make and remain either employed or public. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

As you poke around, if you find someone to talk then I would have convo. Also if you make a question list, then I could monologue and answer them all in video without a connection to you or anyone else. This is assuming that this info would be useful to you.

Yes, I get lots of threats. A group of us met at meta:WikiCredCon_2025 last week and this was the first event with a focus on threats against Wikipedia editors. I will publish in Signpost about this in a month and also I have videos recorded with about 20 attendees.

If you have opinions about privacy then stay in touch with me. I am going to pitch a Wikimedia Foundation / Wikimedia community partnership with Tor. The basic idea is that I want to propose that Wikipedians/WMF assert a right to privacy online, and that people should be able to browse Internet and have basic conversations in private without government or corporate surveillance if they wish.

This is not to sideline your original questions about COI and again I want to comply with any mandated disclosure but I was taking the opportunity of you asking to again seek community consensus and clarity on the rules. Happy to continue discussion at COIN. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I like that idea, I worry that as wikipedia becomes more central to the knowledge ecosystem we will see more of what we're currently seeing in India [2]. On the COI side I think that the community has traditionally believed that if left alone WiR would follow best practices not minimal acceptable practices. We've believed that over time y'all would get better because you also wanted to be better. Given that WiR have instead gravitated towards the low end perhaps we do need to regulate best practices instead of expecting self regulated compliance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has gone through a billion dollars already and ~0% of that has encouraged infrastructure for institutional collaborations. To me, institutional partnerships are a top priority, and because Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on most topics of general interest, it is an error when universities, public health orgs, research institutes, and cultural centers invest in other social media but not Wikipedia. If I had it my way the mandates for quality would be high. High mandates have many benefits, including clarity on what partnerships require. I do what I can with meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. Please propose the highest quality standards and I will vote in support of them.

I know that in wiki community culture it can seem generous to have flexibility and voluntary standards but I personally do not see that as the right way.

Wikipedia is not becoming more central to the knowledge ecosystem. It was global top ten from about 2005-2022, and is on the decline. There is no plan to protect Wikipedia's media position. More institutional partnerships would be a great intervention. Good luck in advancing anything. I would collab to workshop any ideas you have. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

When I ask Siri, Alexa, or Google Assistant a question the answer usually comes from wikipedia... Around the world people are making more use of wikipedia than ever before. The academic analysis says that wikipedia is more important and more reliable than ever before. Global top ten just seems like a really dated metric, I think your understanding of wikipedia is stuck in the past and bears little resemblance to reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not getting credit or growth by its consumption by commercial players. Apple, Amazon, and Alphabet do not give back to the public commons, and ideologically, they are not in support of our values like privacy, shared objective truth, or access to knowledge either. All of those companies sensor their AIs and spread misinfo at the behest of governments, and none of them join Wikipedia or anyone else in pushing back against attacks on our rights.

Yes, you are correct that Wikipedia's content is more increasing in popularity. At every Wikipedia conference someone from WMF gets on stage and says this and neither they nor anyone else have identified any positive benefit or opportunity to seek as a result of this unrecognized, compromised use of the content. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Publically I see it getting credit for it[3], that voice assistants primarily rely on wikipedia isn't just a meme its more or less accurate[4]. I wouldn't paint it as a straight benefit or opportunity, its a double edged sword... Knowledge distribution is good and this increases it but its also why what the wikipedia page says is now a tier one issue for many external parties, people are getting arrested over what the lead of Sambhaji says. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a body of literature about exploitation of open source software projects by users who do not give back, and more general literature on the umbrella issue tragedy of the commons. XKCD "Dependency" is at every conference, because Wikipedia like all such projects is extremely vulnerable and at existential risk. The major problem here is that the reusers are also competitors and that they are contrarian to our values. The general case of exploitation of the commons happens at scale, and there are hardly examples of this turning out beneficially.

The optimism in that NYT article was wishful thinking. Time has passed, nothing has improved, and things are much worse. Wikipedia has competitive advantages, and maybe something good could come out of this, but if there is good to be had, no one at the Wikimedia Foundation or connected to the world brain has written how that might work. I recommend alarmism. If a path you want to explore is mandating regulation of institutional partners, then I think that is wise, because I do not see a future for Wikipedia without greatly increased collaborations with universities or similar. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not a true commons. You also have a vested interest in Wikipedia's collaborations with universities or similar, you appear to be confusing your own interests with wikipedia's which is the core worry many people have about paid editors. I don't think we need them, we would be perfectly fine without any WiR as a class you are not in any way essential. WiR are an oddity which we tolerate, not a core part of the community or something we cherish. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

No one has to like university partnerships. Perhaps you can find your allies in the unorganized aggregate of Wikipedia editors, in Wikipedia community organizations, from the Wikimedia Foundation, with tech companies, or through government regulators. I sincerely hope you find the success you seek. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see the loss, as others have noted for most WiR on the clock edits make up a small share of their edits and the university partnerships are some of the most problematic because the obvious deliverable is promotion of the university's research and promotion is forbidden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey boy. Let's see you come out of your Wikipedia haven and debate people like me on a platform where your ally admins won't block the person who embarrasses you. Just pick your subject, China, Russia, or anything, and your platform, and once you've faced me, your reasons for anonymity will be fully justified western apologist boy. 79.140.150.41 (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats almost too convenient... A willing recruit for Bluerasberry. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Grant Cardone has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Grant Cardone. Thanks! Trex32 (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)