Hi @Horse Eye's Back I can see you've done a lot of work on the Australia-China relations article and would like your thoughts. There's a batch of articles from the last three or four years that indicate Australia has been experiencing a coercion campaign; and I think there's enough of them to create a separate article on the topic. Anyway, I've put that suggestion on the talk page and will let the other major contributors know too. MatthewDalhousie (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @The Education Auditor:, before sharing my views I have asked for a clarification from the OP... But you actually also make that claim here so perhaps you can help me... What is the notable development? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The OP would be the best person to ask. Other than the URL change, I have no idea. I had notified users from previous move requests as there appeared to be a broad consensus in favour for an article called X (social network) this time, the details of which were up to debate. I'm unsure if that is still the case but notified another set of users who participated in an informal survey some time later which included you. I seem to have missed that one as it wasn't a proper move request. I've just been hearing Twitter/X over the last week so I'm likely going to permanently withdraw from the debate and take a break. It's easy to give too much time to things that ultimately don't matter that much. The move request is closed now as far as I'm concerned. Take care of yourself. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, moot point now. Thanks for the notification and happy trails! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've grown fed up with our constant back-and-forth bickering and I'd like to get this conflict resolved so we can both move on. If you're up for it, I am willing to put all tensions behind us, start anew, lay out all the facts, and see if we can come up with a way to include Mattix and the legacy her statements have left behind on Bowie that follows WP guidelines and works for both of us? What do you say? – zmbro(talk) (cont) 02:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, you really don't have anything to fear here. Please remember going forward that Mattix is covered by WP:BLP, if we're starting anew I expect zero BLP violations (for example attempting to use either Gates Medium piece). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware we can't use the Medium article. It's unfortunate because it conveniently lays out all the discrepancies between Mattix's stories, but alas we'll have to try to work around. – zmbro(talk) (cont) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as that work around is within policy and guidelines no issue there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It is you who is trying to keep a certain information on the article, therefore it is YOUR burden to explain why that bit needs to stay on the article in the article talk's page. Regards. ℛonherry☘ 16:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ronherry: that edit seems to both add and remove text rather than just remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and? Wikipedia allows a copyedit and an addition to be performed in the same edit. Hope this helps. ℛonherry☘ 16:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then aren't you also "trying to keep a certain information on the article, therefore it is YOUR burden to explain why that bit needs to stay on the article in the article talk's page." and note that I did open a talk page discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please self-revert your edit of my comments. As you can see in this diff, I made sure this time to not edit anyone's comments other than my own, out of respect for your objection. By pressing forward with reverting my edits to my comments, your actions come across as if they're not about me editing others' comments but instead about—what? Do you disapprove of me changing my mind and deciding that an apologetic website is a bad source for Wikipedia? Do you disapprove of me listening to your feedback and restoring edits to my own comments while leaving others' comments untouched? I can't think of a reasonable purpose for your edit. Out of good faith I am hoping this was a mistake, so I am asking you to acknowledge your error and self-revert. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made an edit to a talk page with changed other peoples comments in addition to your own... Your edit was reverted... You are now objecting to being reverted on the grounds that it reverted the changes to your comments as well... Do I have that right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If indeed what you did was not a straight revert but "restoring edits to my own comments while leaving others' comments untouched?" then I apologize for reverting you, but I took the edit summary as true. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am objecting to your revertofthis edit (already linked in my OP of this thread) in which I undid specifically your edits to my comments but made sure to leave comments not my own in the state they were in when they were first posted by their own users. Click the diffs and look for yourself if you like. You will see that this edit (already linked in my OP of this thread) made no changes to anyone's comments other than my own. In the absence of you reverting your edits of my comments, an action which you recognize as being contrary to the talk page guidelines—including one instance which change[d my] meaning, something the guideline says one should never do—your apology rings hollow. Please self-revert your edit. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I apologize, I was misled by the edit summary and did not realize the limits of your edit. Another editor has already reverted to what they see as the status quo which I am happy with, unless you object I will leave it as it is. Please understand that in the future while you are welcome to edit your own comments for privacy concerns there are not similar grounds to edit the comments of others. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion on this issue is requested
