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; 2025/February; 2025/March; 2025/April; 2025/May;
	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.

June 2025

Deletion review for Urutau (3D Printable Firearm)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Urutau (3D Printable Firearm). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Superlincoln (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grant Cardone (May 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

I am being tempted to reject as this draft has been declined four times. The sources revolves supporting Trump's campaign.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Grant Cardone and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Horse Eye's Back! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: are you sure? That doesn't look like competent analysis to me... There is in fact sufficient significant coverage and I struggle to explain how you came to the conclusion you did by any path other than incompetence or error. Please explain yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't see how a competent good faith editor could conclude that "The sources revolves supporting Trump's campaign." without making some sort of major mistake... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: please? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back, I am sorry I didn't respond. I didn't see any notification for the ping. Please what didn't you understand from the decline? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SafariScribe: I don't understand why it was declined, your explanation is clearly mistaken at best. The topic meets GNG, the sources are all there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You concluded "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." that is false.

You concluded "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)." that is false.

You concluded "The sources revolves supporting Trump's campaign." that is false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Horse Eye's Back, I agree @SafariScribe should explain their their decline. However, if you believe it meets notability why not move it mainspace? S0091 (talk) 18:43, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its admin locked and my request for unlock was denied[1] by Anachronist on the grounds of SafariScribe's decline (which I'm not sure is kosher P+G wise but I'm going to yell at one person at a time) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. S0091 (talk) S0091 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grant Cardone (businessman) has been accepted

Grant Cardone (businessman), 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 leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify

I will not reply over there, but I am asking for clarification because I am genuinely confused. What did you mean by this article under discussion here was not part of a mass creation? Are you saying that this article is not their (second-)most recent case of rapidly creating articles about current events that are sent to AfD for notability reasons? Or did you mean something else? Could you please clarify? Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mass creation =/= rapid creation but no, that does not appear to be part of a set of rapidly created articles [2] either. Only one other article appears to have been created on the same day and you have to go three days back before you find another... They're averaging less than an article a day (34 articles over six months since the new year) so neither mass or rapid. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. It appears you're going with a much stricter definition of "rapid"/"mass" than me, and I think it may not have occured to you that they were restricted to creating drafts for the past six months due to the TBAN. Well, in any case, I've stricken my comment and apologized for any unintended harm, so nothing more to be done. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It had occurred to me but doesn't seem to make all that much difference, since the block expired on April, 8 (30 days ago) I see 19 article creations. In the sense that people have been sanctioned for it we're talking dozens or hundreds of article creations a day. In addition I also don't think anyone can credibly claim that if this editor hadn't created that article someone else wouldn't have... This isn't the sort of obscure marginally notable people/events that got them in trouble in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse admin

Hi,

The admin User:Favonian And the user Joshua Keep blocking people that write and refer to an up that the block has expired on. They cannot keep referring to an expired block forerver. Isn't that misuse of admin power. 59.15.61.6 (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And nope: blocked for a year at 22 june User contributions for 121.172.158.13. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Jane's Revenge

Don't do that again. You WILL be reported for vandalism. Thank you. CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you question a source, don't just undo the entire edit. Either find or request a better source. CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CanBeDifficultToDealWith: that isn't how WP:BLP works... " Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable — must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And your editing isn't how Wikipedia works. You are essentially vandalizing the page solely because of the source used. As I said, if you question the source, you don't just mindlessly undo the entire edit. Find a better source or mark it as needing a better source. Good luck with that because I've looked. The information isn't wrong and I highly suspect you have a personal bias against the source. If you have a further problem with this, then find someone to help you understand. Don't get into an edit war with me over correct information. CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't find a better source you can't indlude the information on wikipedia. Its not a personal bias, its a standing community consensus to deprecate it... See WP:DAILYCALLER. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look. What's this? ___> ^{[better source needed]} Whaaaa? You can use that on Wikipedia instead of removing an entire edit full of correct information? CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do that when its BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, guess what, you just shot yourself in the foot. THE ARTICLE ISN'T A BIOGRAPHY OF A LIVING PERSON!!! It's an article about a TERRORIST GROUP!!! The information is NOT CONTENTIOUS!!! I win. Stop deleting accurate information because you have a bias against the source. Put in the right tag(s) if you have a problem with the source. Oh, and while you're at it, better get busy deleting TONS of information on Ben Shapiro because there are 26 -- TWENTY-SIX -- uses of the Daily Wire as a reference, and that actually IS a biography of a living person! CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP isn't limited to articles where the topic is a living person. The use on Ben Shapiro likely is under the WP:ABOUTSELF exception although I have not reviewed it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep deleting the U.S. Dept. of Justice source, too? Yeah, you're just exposing your bias with that. You're not even looking at the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) (Sorry for intevening HEB) @CanBeDifficultToDealWith, please read WP:CIVIL and be polite. Attacking editors who are taking the time to try and explain thing to you is a slippery slope. Knitsey (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He isn't explaining anything. He's just removing accurate information en masse for no valid reason. I removed the personal attack. What goes for the one article goes for the other or it's hypocritical. CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am explaining... You aren't understanding, for example you think that BLP only applies to articles where the topic is a living person... Please actually review WP:BLP as "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries

This isn't a "trim". Neither is this, or this, or this. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 00:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LilianaUwU: yes it is... Its literally trimming spam. A trim is any removal of content less than section or page blanking, although it can apply to section blanking in some contexts. None of those edits are marked as minor. If you have an alternative definition provide it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which universe is a definition of what something means spam? Are you this dense? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:00, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its spam because its repeated across the project and is undue. Please be civil, you can say your piece without insulting my intelligence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You harrassed the roads editors until they forked, all while skirting the lines of civility to avoid being blocked. You have no say in what civility is. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cast such WP:ASPERSIONS, I never harassed anyone. Is there a reason you've entirely abandoned the issue that brought you here in favor of personal attacks? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, man. Things aren't going well for me, and for some reason I thought it was a good idea to lash out against someone who didn't do anything. I'm sorry. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the part where the nature of interactions on the internet makes it hard to tell acerbic sarcasm (which I know you are certainly capable from) from genuine openness (which I also know you to be capable of). Either way I appreciate it, but especially if genuine. I don't mean you any ill will, neither do I mean the roads editors any (imo the issues that led to them forking were issues long before either you or I ever edited wikipedia and the big ones like appropriate use of primary sources and inherent notability were largely inevitable and not fights the roads editors had any real chance of winning because they were just so far removed from the broader expectations of the community). If I may explain my edits I am trimming information which I believe was added in good faith a long time ago but no longer meets our current standards, for example we generally don't explain in detail concepts or things which are linked to... We don't need to explain that the National Highway System (United States) is "a network of roads important to the country's economy, defense, and mobility." and also addressing the related issue where a negative claim is made sourced to an absense of the topic appearing in the source material "No part of the highway is listed on the National Highway System, a system of strategically important highways."[3]. That may have flown at one time but today is considered undue and/or OR. I'm not trying to step on people's toes, but the nature of editing a collaborative work is that you are always stepping on other people's toes... That is why we are required to set aside our ownership of the content we create in both a literal and metaphorical sense. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:30, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be sarcastic, but yes, this time it's sincere.

I got lots on my mind, from the Réseau de transport de la Capitale strikes to me wanting to get a driver's license... and the whole personal issues that I should probably not get into in here. I got bad coping mechanisms, too, as you may have seen in this very section.

You're not wrong that explaining what the NHS is on every article, or mentioning that a highway is not part of it, is probably pointless. I don't know why I'm defending that when I would be reverting the same type of writing from all the other subjects. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:15, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transit strikes are always hard, of course you want to support the drivers and staff but the disruption can be considerable. Driving a car is fun, terrifying to learn! And all in all not as comfortable as a bus or train. Heres a fun one... You can think of learning to drive as one of the last true rituals remaining in our societies... We learn to obey arcane signs and lights in the sky and must memorize sometimes ancient seeming traditions and customs which as a collective whole allow us to travel at distances and speeds historically reserved for gods and heroes with minimal danger. Anyways thank you for keeping the personal stuff out of the public record, but I appreciate that context. On the wiki side we all have out blind spots and areas where we are extra quick to respond to perceived issues. I wish you the best and hope that our next editing interaction is a more positive one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

btw, Daily Wire is not Daily Caller

Just fyi. CanBeDifficultToDealWith (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good call that at some point the wires got crossed... Doesn't make much of a difference though, neither is a usable source in such a context. Interestingly enough the Daily Mail and Daily Mirror would also not be usable, and the Daily Planet and Daily Bugle don't exist IRL. Its a daily dozen of mediocrity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo 1RR

Hello, with the Kosovo article, please note that all editors on this article are subject to 1RR per day and are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page. For full details, see 1 (subsequently modified by 2). King regards IJA (talk) 10:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]