User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2020/November

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael H. Sutton

in case you're not watching, thanks for amazing/quick work there. I have no idea what was so off on my Google that I missed it. StarM 22:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: no worries! The stories were hard to pick out, google doesnt do a great job finding old news articles and there isnt anything from the last few years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, Telsho reminds me more of User:Alexkyoung. Alex simfish same

agenda, cockiness and lack of remorse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.202.132 (talk) 00:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

help on the trade war article

Can you take a look at the debate on this section of the talk page of the CHina-United States trade war? I see that you've been involved on the main article and that you've had extensive prior interactions with one of the editors on that thread. (Thucydides411) I have a feeling that the content dispute from there is going to escalate to ANI and want to make sure I have the clearest idea of who my opponent(s) will be if that should happen. Your input would be most welcomed. Flaughtin (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Bludgeoning articles

Can you please stop bludgeoning articles? Yesterday you chopped up Conor O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin and refused to let me improve it. Now you have chopped up Srđan Šaper and Idoli. Especially the last one is interesting, as you claimed that the bludgeoning was done on grounds of BLP but I have never seen a band being a living person. Especially not when the band is disbanded. The Banner talk 19:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Thats not what WP:BLUDGEON means. Please review WP:BLP, the BLP policy applies to all information about living people on all pages, even talk and admin. E.g. statements about the living members of the band are all covered by BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

You have been warned now... The Banner talk 19:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: I have not acutally been warned... Are we clear on what the BLP policy is and what it applies to? You seemed confused for a while there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I try to do it friendly first. But it is your risk, not mine. The Banner talk 19:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If by friendly you mean arrogant, disruptive, and full of misplaced ownership of a wikipedia page then yes you did try to do it friendly first. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just so we’re clear bludgeoning doesnt apply where you keep saying it does, on wikipedia "Bludgeoning the process is where someone attempts to force their point of view by the sheer volume of comments, such as contradicting every viewpoint that is different from their own. Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people. This can happen on a talk page, deletion discussion or in any discussion at Wikipedia. It is undesirable. Doing so may be considered a form of disruptive editing.” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing uncontroversial text because it has a deprecated source or a source request is not positive for an article. Especially when you remove a large part of the text. The Banner talk 19:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: Controversial means anything that has been or is likely to be objected to, by definition anything that has been removed has been objected to. The very act of objecting makes it controversial even if it wasn’t already. Its removal from a BLP page is actually required by BLP, not removing it is a BLP violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Evidence? (of the objections, I mean) The Banner talk 19:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@The Banner: For Conor O’Brien the relevant diffs are [1],[2], and [3]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Srđan Šaper have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Do not misuse WP:BLP The Banner talk 15:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The Banner its a BLP, and just FYI removing significant BLP violations is one of the WP:3RRNO so if you’re thinking of continuing to edit war over it don't. The only one who will face sanctions is you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Also you don't appear to have undone it, please don’t misuse tags like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Remember that you were threatening me over it. You should tone down a bit. Your aggressiveness will cause you trouble pretty soon. The Banner talk 16:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No threats have been made, in fact if you notice your talk page is completely free of warning templates despite you adding unsourced information to three different BLPs... My restraint has been remarkable. How many times have you posted on my talk page by now? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

From your own editsummary: Undid revision 989396218 by The Banner (talk) The next time you violate BLP you will get a formal warning. I call that a threat. The Banner talk 17:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You will, I technically should have given you a warning each of the first half dozen times... Please see Wikipedia:Harassment “Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats." I’ve been extremely lenient of your misconduct because I believe that your heart is in the right place and you’ve just never learned wikipedia policy and procedure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you can quote all kinds of pages. But that still makes your attitude okay. The Banner talk 18:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly on both points. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you can quote all kinds of pages. But that still dies not makes your attitude okay. The Banner talk 17:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC) Sorry, correction.

Return

Welcome back, Jack. Activist (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to VivaTaiwan, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. A deprecated source can still be cited for statements about what the source itself said, are you paying attention when you remove stuff like this? jp×g 22:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This page isn't about the deprecated source, we have nothing which establishes that they should be included on the page. Also you misused rollback, don't do it again or you may lose rollback privileges. Also I very clearly explained the reasoning in the edit summary so it seems you used the wrong template. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Joseph Gu, you may be blocked from editing. jp×g 23:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

While it's true that it's a deprecated source, I really think you should be looking at the articles before you edit them, to determine if removal is appropriate. Deprecation of a source does not mean that literally every thing (including clearly uncontroversial statements) ever published by the source magically becomes untrue -- are you honestly trying to say that the Global Times is not a reliable source for what the Global Times said about something? jp×g 23:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: That generally only applies to pages about the subject or their activity. In order to even be eligible for about self in the first place on an unrelated page a deprecated source has to be mentioned by a reliable source. You should also realize that any quotations from living people by definition fall under WP:BLP. Please actually engage rather than tag bomb, your lack of willingness to engage in talk page discussions is becoming disruptive. Thank you for taking note that your use of rollback was inappropriate and not using it for the remainder of your reverts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Han Chinese nationalism has been accepted

Han Chinese nationalism, 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.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

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 .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

UN Map "Consensus"

Hey, I noticed you are an active user on the Taiwan wiki page and had a question regarding maps depicting disputed states such as Taiwan. I have been told that a "consensus" has been formed to always include Taiwan as part of the PRC on maps related to the UN. Do you have any idea where this consensus originated? I also asked on the village pump, but haven't received many responses yet. I'm a new editor and looking for a bit more context. Eclipsed830 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eclipsed830: Thats interesting, I’ve never heard of that consensus... In general we do the opposite of that, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles#Maps. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Dude

Talk:Taiwan is a mess right now. Several people there seem sus. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: that happens every now and again on pages where there is a strong outside interest against wikipedia’s consensus (tbh its the same sort of conduct whether the outside interest is a business, a country, or a religious organization... They all seem to fight dirty in a similar way). Its best to just let them spit into the wind rather than continue to engage when the SPAs become tendentious. As they have no actual desire to work to improve wikipedia their editing often ends completely within a week or two if they aren’t fed and as they have no interest in working towards or respecting a consensus they rarely actually end up accomplishing anything. Also remember that its a common practice of sockmasters to create accounts specifically to provoke good editors into taking actions which lead to them being banned, its important to not take the bait and keep a cool head even when a new account is going apeshit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A certain user (I don't want to ping him) has decided to open an arbitration case against me. My crime was removing comments, which I admittedly did. However, I transferred the bulk of those comments over to my own user talk page. Also, hilariously, another user collapsed a thread that I started, asking about the legitimacy of Nathan Rich, and in his edit summary, he accused me of pushing a "far-right" agenda. I'm an anarchist, lol. I'm not gonna do anything stupid from this point forward. In any case, my arguments are rock solid, whereas their arguments amount to gaslighting, as I've explained in the talk page. Thanks for the support. <3 Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Alright. I'm going to sit this one out. I've been threatened with a block, though I haven't actually been blocked yet. I've been let off with a very close warning. Fight the good fight, comrade. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)