User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2021/July

Bismuth

There is a discussion taking place concerning one of your edits to Bismuth at Talk:Bismuth#About bismuth recycling. Since I have been pronounced "too stupid" in this discussion, I intend to bow out and leave it to my bettors to hash out the issue. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

How much research effort should be expended before adding 'cn'? At the very least, following the Wikilinks in the sentence should be tried.

Hi!

It's good to make sure Wikipedia is well sourced, but your marking on the page 'Parking Orbit' are not constructive, in my opinion, without explaining in the edit summary, or the talk page, just what you think is missing. The first cn seems obvious (needs enough battery life) - if you think this is not clear, please explain. The Ariane 5 and Briz are explained by following the respective links, which in Wikipedia is even easier than following a cite. For the fourth one, typing 'Galileo parking orbit' (without the quotes) into Google provides the info you seek in the very first hit. In this case it would be more constructive to add the reference yourself, rather than mark it 'cn'. In my opinion, you would help Wikipedia much more by following the explanatory links, then only adding 'cn' when these do not provide the information you believe is missing. Then, if you are not satisfied with the Wiki link, try the obvious google search. If that answers your question, add the reference instead of the 'cn'. If neither the Wikilink or the google search shows an answer, then a 'cn' is justified (with a reason as to why you are puzzled) since another reader may have exactly the same question. 'cn' without following these steps does not improve Wikipedia in my opinion. It induces doubt in correct statements that are easily verified, and does not highlight the statements that really need verification. LouScheffer (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Everything needs to be sourced, being “obvious” is not an exception. A CN is added when a source is needed, not when additional explanation or information is needed. A CN tag means that the source is missing, its self explanatory and requires no explanation on the talk page unlike some other tags. What is *never* acceptable is removing a CN tag without providing a source which you appear to have done at Parking orbit. You can argue that what I did was not constructive, but I don’t see how you can get around the fact that by the same logic what you did was disruptive. Please don’t do that again, long term disruptive behavior will get you blocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But being obvious is an exception - the official Wikipedia rules state, in Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue: 'This page in a nutshell: Although citing sources is an important part of editing Wikipedia, there is no need to cite information that is already obvious.' Also, according to Wikipedia policy, 'cn' tags do require discussion on the talk page. From the same page, 'Use only those tags necessary to illustrate the problem, and discuss the matter in detail on the talk page.' And tags can most surely be removed without adding a reference - otherwise vandals would add one after every word, and in general citations are only required when (according to Wikipedia:Citing sources) "Wikipedia's verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations". And in Wikipedia:Tag bombing they again state 'Adding tags to articles should be accompanied by sufficient reasoning on the tagged article's talk page (or in a "reason" parameter where one exists) to explain why the tags are needed.' I believe this is particularly important where a section, or a sentence, consists of many clauses, only some of which require sources. So it helps if the tag explains which information they believe requires backup. This is particularly easy with the '|reason=' portion of a . Then hovering over the 'cn' shows the reason, as the following (made up) example shows: LouScheffer (talk) 02:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If it has been marked with a CN tag it has been challenged, therefore an inline citation is required. The rest is just essays. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

No, a 'cn' means a statement is unsourced. Challenged means a reader believes, or is likely to believe, that the statement is wrong. What statement in the article do you think is incorrect? LouScheffer (talk) 04:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m the reader, I challenged them. Having been challenged they require an inline citation. End of story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

The Journey of a Thousand Miles

You inquired. I provide.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&diff=655932674
• https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=5131023

This is sufficient to take the first step, but a word of warning. This path is very long and it can become a massive time-suck. SimoneBilesStan (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Kamakhya Temple

You have flagged the Kamakhya_Temple#Description as requiring more citations [1]. Nearly every sentence in that section is cited. Could you please specify where it requires more citations? Chaipau (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Only 2/3 of that section is cited, 1/3 of the section is uncited. It requires citation in the places in which it is uncited. If “nearly every sentence in that section is cited” then obviously the parts that are not cited need citations. What about this is confusing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Surface lift

Hello. I suspect your changes to the Surface lift page are unnecessary because the nature of those lifts is well defined 'common knowledge' and therefore you it is highly unlikely you will find any footnoted and peer reviewed papers defining what they are.

So I'm confident that no one will even try to find the citations you are asking for and they will just add visual clutter to the page and worsen readers experience for an indefinite period.

BTW. I'm an industry expert and have written a lot of ski history, (popular and the fully footnoted type) and I've won awards for both, so I do know what I'm talking about.

So please consider removing your changes or at the least, it would be nice if you reply and tell me why you don't want to revert back to the original. Thanks, Dave ( Bogong (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC) )

@Bogong: 99% of the world doesn’t ski so hard to believe its common knowledge... Thats also not a standard wikipedia uses, not sourcing things isn’t an option we have. Our only options here are to either source or remove the material, I couldn’t in good faith remove those tags without doing that even if I wanted to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Chen Yifa

Are you out of your mind? Miss Chen is a celebrity in China, knowing her doesn't mean you cannot edit her wiki page since she is not "family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". Please try not to be an ignorant douche bag.