User talk:Horse Eye's Back

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

January 2021[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Australia–China relations; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TranscendentMe (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Opalzukor (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

cut & paste move[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Law enforcement in the Republic of China a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Law enforcement in Taiwan. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

A request at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge is awaiting administration. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Vague excuse for vandalizing East Asian Cultural Sphere Article[edit]

You have vandalized the article twice now. The excuse used was "unsupported changes". This is coming just solely from you, and I don't even know if you are an expert on this topic or not.

Just because you don't agree with the information that corresponds with the published sources included, it does not mean that you are entitled to delete things you don't agree with. You must not be lazy and actually comb through the changes and understand why the new edits were included without reverting massive amounts of added data. Otherwise, your disruptive changes will be counted as vandalism. (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thats not how WP:ONUS or WP:BRD work, its up to you to get WP:CONSENSUS for your changes on the article talk page. Also please review WP:VANDALISM, WP:AGF, and WP:ASPERSIONS. If you want to make editing wikipedia a long term thing its probably best to be constructive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I-Ban warning[edit]

Hi Horse Eye. This edit been brought to my attention, wherein you are indirectly referring to CaradhrasAiguo. That violates your IBAN as you should well know. This is merely a warning, as I can see that it might have been unintentional. But if you violate you IBAN again, then the blocks will start. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: I was under the impression that indirect comments on content or arguments raised by multiple editors was ok, in particular that participation in a talk page discussion in which the other person was only one of many participants was kosher as long as you didn't directly respond to them. Félix An's edit summary "please see reason and carefully read the linked pages by CaradhrasAiguo below” [1] made some level of indirect comment almost impossible to avoid. I’m not sure why you say "as you should well know,” this is my first and only IBAN. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Direct or indirect, CA was the apparent target of your comment. You mention an undoing of adoring nanny's edit, and the only such revert is by CA [2]. Sorry for the "as you should well know", perhaps not my best turn of phrase, consider this your reminder then. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 20:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek:Félix An was the target of the comment, however their entire edit summary was invoking someone else’s argument, hence the very carefully worded "original edit summary” rather than “OP’s edit summary” or something similar. Adoring nanny is the author of the text which was reverted by both the user I have an Iban with and Félix An. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: Are we good now? From my extremely careful reading of WP:IBAN (document interpretation is what I do for a living) there was no violation of any of the five points. There were no talk page edits, there was no replying to the other in a discussion, there was no reference to or comment on another editor, there was no undoing of each others edits, and there have been no thanks traded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, The policy says make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly;. You indirectly referenced CA. Regardless, this was just a warning, I took no action, and we are good for now. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek Thanks for the explanation. I indirectly referenced their edit summary not them, that to me didn't fit that criteria and if its that expansive the issue appears unavoidable. In the future how should I address a situation where an edit summary I would like to comment on is just an invocation of a user’s edit summary I can't have contact with? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, Invoking an IBanned user's edit summary is inherently interacting with them. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: Points of wikipedia philosophy aside what does this mean for me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lieutenant of Melkor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, Well that is most unexpected, and I guess you are owed an apology. What that means for you I'm not quite sure to be honest, unless you have a specific question? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: Yeah its wild... Especially coming a day after Geographyinitiative got indeffed (heres the really unexpected part... Geographyinitiative and CA always fought like cats and dogs over minutia but Geographyinitiative tried to unilaterally get Lieutenant of Melkor’s ban lifted User talk:Lieutenant of Melkor#Unblocking Request Attempt and adorned their talk page with really over the top praise [3]). I guess the question is whether the IBAN is moot as the other user wasn’t a legitimate user or whether I now have an IBAN with the whole CA/Lieutenant of Melkor/Guardian of the Ring ecosystem? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, Seeing as they are blocked, its a bit of a moot point. Since they oughtn't be editing much in the near future (and we hope if they return they won't seek you out), you should be free and easy. Now, don't go about trying to meddle in the edits of that sock farm in general. I can't give an official pronouncement, as there really isn't guidance about IBAN's with socking users (its an unusual and weird occurrence). I think you'd need to ask at AN to get the thoughts of a variety of admins on how this will work going forward. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 07:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: I have no intention of meddling in the edits of the sock farm in general or CA in particular, I’d like to note the weird Geographyinitiative/Lieutenant of Melkor interactions on the sockpuppet investigation but if I can’t due to the IBAN thats not a big deal (its just so bizarre though, CA is the one who got GI indeffed but GI hero worshiped Melkor who was unmasked as CA the day after GI was indeffed... Thats shakespearean). Sorry for wasting your time with unusual and weird occurrences. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Horse, I think you should probably appeal the i-ban and see what happens. As a sock, CA was obviously acting in bad faith, and the sockmaster was indef blocked 6 and half years ago for harassment amd PAs! My hunch is that they'll be back before too long to cause trouble again, and you'll probably be a target. It'd be silly if you couldn't pursue an SPI in the future that mentions CA because of an i-ban! BilCat (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


And who is [4] a sock of? Food obsessions points me in the intsf direction but it wasn't caught in the CU. CMD (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, I’ve almost never come across an authentic editor who hits the ground running like that. CUs aren’t wonder weapons, I’d put it up for review at the intsf sockpuppet investigation. Perhaps the master is becoming more technically adept. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

2022 Winter Olympics[edit]

The article was fine before you reverted the changes made. I have followed the media during the Hong Kong protests and that's primarily when the calls to boycott have occurred. The Hong Kong protests received the most attention from the media, and as far as I can tell the Uyghur and Xinjiang papers played a lesser role. Those should be moved to controversy subtopic instead. Stonksboi (talk) 08:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please don’t make massive changes to an article’s lede simply because you’ve "followed the media” and think you know better than the sources we have. You didn’t move anything btw, what do you mean by "Those should be moved to controversy subtopic instead" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at 2022 Winter Olympics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

See the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. PailSimon (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@PailSimon: when multiple people have reverted you maybe you should take a moment to reflect on whether the problem is with everyone else or yourself. Might also help to open a talk page discussion or follow BRD like you repeatedly castigate others for not doing but as far as I can tell you have never done. Escalating to warnings against multiple established editors is unseemly. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Two reverted yes but hat is not really relevant to whether edit warring has occurred however as two can incorrectly edit war and I have not actually accused the other of edit warring. I have actually just opened a talk page discussion. Multiple established editors? Firstly, I warned none but you, secondly get over yourself for crying out loud!PailSimon (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Please either stay civil or stay off my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


Hello. No, I don't know what's going on, but my blocking log,[5] as of now, may be of interest. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely fascinating. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


Notice that you are now not subject to a community sanction (no, not at all ;-)[edit]

<Incorrect message removed, with apologies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)>

@Boing! said Zebedee: can you explain this a little bit? Both in general and what exactly the sanction is, the section appears to have been left blank. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Oops, that's entirely the wrong template, thanks to a c&p error, so I have removed it. I intended to leave a general sanctions notification message (as general practice to ensure editors working in that area know about it). My intended message is as follows...
Commons-emblem-notice.svgThis is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: Dude, you almost gave me a heart attack. SO happy it was the wrong template and I take what you said about being less confrontational on the talk page to heart. Happy new year! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Hehe, sorry again - and HNY to you too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]

Information icon

Hello Horse Eye's Back. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Atlantic Diving Supply, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Horse Eye's Back. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Horse Eye's Back|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. This tag also includes the creation of Vectrus. BowlerJasper (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not and if I did most of the coverage wouldnt be of the times they’ve been brought to court... I have a question for you though: is this your first wikipedia account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Jasper seems to have mastered the AfD process in just a few minutes. It took me many months to get my head around WP:NCORP, WP:ORGDEPTH etc. Interesting. Spiderone 23:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
@Spiderone: if they aren’t a sock or something similar they just might be our messiah... Our own Athena sprung fully formed from the head of Zeus with a complete knowledge of wikipedia policy and procedures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely! Such a shame that he decides to waste time trying to get notable content deleted... Spiderone 23:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Spiderone, drop the stick and step away from the dead horse. User:Horse_Eye's_Back you have posted the same message on all the AFDs opened by the aforementioned user. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@Tyw7: At the time they had not answered the question, is that a problem of some kind? I’m also not sure what you mean by drop the stick, the issue has never really been raised. Also just to be clear I am the creator of both pages nominated for AFD by the WP:SPA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, and you just posted multiple instances of the same message casting aspersions to Bowler. See this and this and this --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Asking whether someone has edited wikipedia under a previous account isn’t casting aspersions. Take a peak at their editing history. Also I didnt just do those, they’re almost a day old. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, well you accused them of being a sock on 1) the AFD pages 2) This talk page 3) User:BowlerJasper's talk page.
Just because they have nominated your article doesn't mean they're a sock. They could be editing anonymously or came upon those articles. Read WP:AFD page and registered to nominate the article. After all, only registered users can nominate pages. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
They’ve actually never done anything but nominate two of my articles for deletion and then try to gut them. They’ve literally never made an edit outside of that or their own talk/user page. I don’t believe that I’ve made a direct accusation of them being a sock, if I have and you have a diff I will retract that specific assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, but you have indirectly implied they're a WP:SOCK. That is what casting aspersions mean. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That is what one of the common meanings of casting aspersions is, thats not what the wikipedia policy is... Read what you just linked me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, well the page links to Wikitionary, which states: "(idiomatic) To make damaging or spiteful remarks."
Anyway, I'm not here to argue with you as it's obvious this will go nowhere. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Glad we cleared that up, if I had made damaging or spiteful remarks I would retract them. Have a happy new year. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! This notice is left in response to you casting aspersions to User:BowlerJasper Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I have indeffed the user as an obvious harassment sockpuppet. I am appalled at the treatment Horse Eye Back received in this thread and on User talk:BowlerJasper by other users. Why are we giving socks the time of day? A brand new account nominating articles created by the same user for deletion within minutes of their creation obviously does not have noble intentions. Horse had good reason to call the user a sock. Sockpuppets forfeit all assumption of good faith the minute they start abusing multiple accounts. Sro23 (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


Please don't kid yourself you are doing anything useful by going round articles adding cn tags to everything that doesn't have a reference. The chances of this resulting in any references being added are vanishingly small. That's because we have lots of editors like you who just add tags, but very few indeed who do anything to sort them out. Johnbod (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Personally I find tagged articles easier to improve than untagged ones (particularly in that they let you know how long an issue has been unaddressed without a deep and deeply time consuming dive into the edit history), wikipedia takes all sorts and just on an ethical level it is my personal belief that all unsourced text should be noted either in the text or at the top of the page. Take a look at my article creations if you doubt my contribution to the project. My last two article creations (Vectrus and Atlantic Diving Supply) were immediately targeted for deletion by one of the sockmasters I have pissed off through diligent Sockpuppet investigation participation so you will understand why my edits are mostly low key at the moment. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) HE, I frequently remove unsourced items from articles. I may be one of the rare ones, but I appreciate the efforts to abide by Wikipedia's policies, which I also value. Keep up the good work. Note, instead of tagging, in some cases you can remove the unsourced material outright, especially if an article tag about sources already exists. BilCat (talk) 21:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words. I know it can be outright removed but I rarely do unless there are vandalism, spam, or BLP concerns. I like to give it at least a year or so to see if someone more familiar than myself can source it or something close to it. Straight up removing it does appear to do a better job of spurring other editors to source or replace the text but it also rubs people the wrong way and in my opinion creates more conflict than its worth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm specifically referring to articles that have unreferenced tags at the top of the article, along with the other exceptions you mentioned. I understand about creating more conflict, but personally I find it worth the conflict to delete, as it generally gets results faster. :) BilCat (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Its mostly a comfort thing, if its in a topic I feel sufficiently knowledgable about I’l remove lots of things under those circumstances and take on any discussion that ensues. The hesitancy comes in when I know next to nothing about a topic (as is the case with 95% of wikipedia). I’l probably get more decisive as I become better acquainted with wikipedia, it still feels very new to me and the ability of hostile actors to inflict damage is unlike anything I’ve encountered in other internet venues. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I totally understand about hostile actors. Part of it is the ease of editing Wikipedia, especially without being logged in. I faced a lot of that in my early years, and even quit a couple of times because of it. If you ever need to talk privately, feel free to drop me a line. BilCat (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This is terrible advice frankly. Vast amounts of stuff on wp is unreferenced but accurate and important for the articles. The useful, but harder, thing is to try and reference it. Johnbod (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I always thought talking privately about a problem was a good thing! BilCat (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: I would take you more seriously if you phrased these things as your opinions rather than unassailable objective truths about how wikipedia works. Hyperbole and denigration are not the building blocks of a convincing argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

You may have deleted my earlier comment, but the issue remains - perhaps you should consider reading:

Template:Citation needed#When not to use this template

... If you have the time and ability to find an authoritative reference, please do so. Then add the citation yourself, or correct the article text. After all, the ultimate goal is not to merely identify problems, but to fix them.
While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag, particularly in what is known as "drive-by" tagging, which is applying the tag without attempting to address the issues at all. Consider whether adding this tag in an article is the best approach before using it, and use it judiciously. Wikipedia's verifiability policy does not require ... that citations be repeated through every sentence in a paragraph.
For entire articles or sections that contain significant material lacking citations (rather than just specific short passages), there are other, more appropriate templates, such as Template:Unreferenced and Template:More citations needed (for whole articles) as well as Template:Unreferenced section and Template:More citations needed section (for sections of articles).

When you added the 'unreferenced' tag to Maritime Search and Security Operations Team, it would have been better to have used Template:Stub instead. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bahudhara: again you seem confused and I’m not sure that my talk page is the best place to work through your confusion, why would Template:Stub be the more appropriate template there? Template:Stub has nothing to do with whether or not the page is sourced, I can see an argument for tagging it with both but not for one tag replacing the other as they aren’t related. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Also please keep in mind per "While an editor may add this template to any uncited passage for any reason, many editors object to what they perceive as overuse of this tag,” the issue is with you not me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Please see WP:STALKING.PailSimon (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per the linked page "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. The use of words stalking and wikistalking was abandoned in the policy as the result of this discussion. Please avoid using this shortcut.” Overall I’m confused, is this retaliation for not taking your side in the ANI discussion you opened? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
See WP:WIKIHOUNDING.PailSimon (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:ASPERSIONS please provide a detailed explanation including diffs to support your accusations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Talk:David Bowie among others.PailSimon (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
That is not a WP:DIFF and you are actually going to have to be more specific than “among others.” Failure to support repeated and serious aspersions is a WP:NPA violation as the above would have told you if you had read it. Also wait what? The David Bowie talk page? We’ve never interacted there, it doesnt even seem like you’ve ever edited Talk:David Bowie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You appeared at the Bowie article right after I did. Strange is all. Not to mention your miracolous discovery of the ANI discussion...PailSimon (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You never appeared on that talk page, I got there from MarnetteD’s talk page and still don’t see how you are involved. I peruse ANI, if I had been hounding you don’t you think that I would have commented a little sooner after you made the section? Again WP:DIFFs are required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Also did you seriously just accuse me of wikihounding and then immediately after go make a series of edits to Tankie[6][7][8]? I know you couldn’t possibly have done that, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. PailSimon (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
So you’re saying someone else has taken control of your account and made those edits without your knowledge? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Have you edited the tankie article recently? PailSimon (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I’m the one who unredirected it... Don’t play stupid and don’t disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
How am I to know that exactly? PailSimon (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Did you miss the talk page and article history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't read the entire talk page history no. PailSimon (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
You didn’t need to read the history, you just needed to read the discussion above yours Talk:Tankie#Notability. Again please Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You wouldn't have needed to read the entire history either, just the first five entries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I utilised the 'new section' function so I would not have seen it.PailSimon (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Nobody is laughing along with you. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page[edit]

You have warned me against attacking other users on the Taiwan talk page. Interestingly, I haven't attacked anyone personally you haven't actually addressed any of my arguments. Have you written the same message to all the other users on that talk page attacking people personally for arguing against pro-Taiwanese propaganda? AmericanPropagandaHunter (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Mmmmhmmm... "I believe Jargo Nautilus is a state-sponsored propagandist of the US capitalist, war criminal regime.”[9] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Curious comment[edit]

I saw this comment. I'm curious who are these most prolific wikipedians. Feel free to email me for confidentiality. Or if you'd rather not identify them at all, that's totally cool too.VR talk 16:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I’m going to have to pick that last option. I assume that whether ironclad or not such specific allegations would violate WP:NPA no matter what form they take and I don’t mix public and private communication on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks! VR talk 18:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)