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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Lostromantic (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice work

Good to see you back in the swing around here! The Little Platoon (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

What is to be done?

I saw this comment. What should be done about it?VR _talk 17:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: given that the blatant behavior is continuing today I would support any report filed, they’re pretty clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have other examples? This edit looks pretty WP:COATRACK-y, which was eventually reverted by Drmies. What other examples are there? VR _talk 20:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Even more of their edits on that page were later reverted. I think their created articles list [1] is informative... We get stuff like "The Murder of Wilma Andersson whereupon she was murdered by her Swedish-Iraqi boyfriend happened in November 2019 in Uddevalla, Sweden. Her boyfriend was arrested in his absence 3 December and was apprehended 4 December.” (Murder of Wilma Andersson) and I don’t know about you but it seems weird to mention the murderer’s ethnicity but not his name while mentioning the victims name but not ethnicity. Admittedly this is a horrible crime, but they seem to go out of their way to highlight racial aspects of things that an NPOV article just wouldn’t highlight or feature. They are also a specific type of crime, we have a half dozen very detailed pages about crimes committed by immigrants to European countries against young caucasian European women. All of them explicitly mention the ethnicity of the criminal or accused criminal in the lead:

• “Krantz was raped and murdered by Ephrem Yohannes, a 23-year-old Ethiopian immigrant,” Murder of Elin Krantz
• “Ali Bashar Ahmad Zebari, a 21-year-old asylum seeker from Iraqi Kurdistan,[1][2][3][4][5] confessed to the murder and was found guilty” Killing of Susanna Feldmann (notice the massive WP:OVERCITE on the ethnicity/asylum seeker part?)
• “Moroccan truck driver Boujemaa Lamrabat was sentenced to life in prison” Murder of Sophia Lösche
• “Mireille Bold, a 17-year-old German girl, was stabbed to death on 12 March 2018 in her apartment in Flensburg, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany by her Afghan ex-boyfriend.” Murder of Mireille B.

The rest of their article creations are similar but I found this trope particularly disturbing, nobody should be using the victims of sexual and domestic violence for racist ends. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Allegation vs. conclusion regarding Brereton's findings

Just letting you know that I was soliciting feedback about how to refer to Brereton's findings at Talk:Brereton_Report#Allegation_vs._conclusion. Your comments would be welcome. TheFeds 12:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Wolf Warrior Diplomacy

Hi, what does lol mean? Thehighwayman5 (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may, LOL is usenet-jargon. --Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I know what it literally means but he just undid a revision of mine only saying lol. its very confusing and a tad bit rude Thehighwayman5 (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

edit-warring by ‎Niezginela

‎Hi, Niezginela is going on with his edit-warring[2]. Regrettably, nobody seem to have cared about your report at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive420#User:Niezginela_reported_by_User:Horse_Eye's_Back_(Result:_). On the part of this user, there is no sign of any willingness to even deal with the specific allegations. --Túrelio (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan Wikipedia article

Taiwan -- I just wanted to inform you that this article is of utmost importance to me because I actually directly learnt of my Taiwanese heritage through this article. I read the introduction to the article in 2017 and some of the details matched my family history, which I previously believed was so unusual that it could not be pinned down to a single country or event. I grew up as a far-removed member of the Taiwanese diaspora in Australia. My ancestors migrated from Japanese Taiwan to Dutch Indonesia during the 1900s–1930s. In 1941–1942, during World War II, they were arrested by the Dutch Indonesian government (on the basis of being Japanese) and were held in an Australian internment camp for four years. My family is currently based in Australia directly as a result of my ancestors' internment here. Due to family trauma, knowledge of my Taiwanese heritage was lost with my maternal grandmother (who is still alive, by the way, but just doesn't like to talk about her Taiwanese heritage). Ever since I discovered my Taiwanese heritage in 2017, I've been researching a lot about Taiwan on the internet and I've been getting in contact with Taiwan-focused academics. In any case, In wkpd's comments about the Taiwan Wikipedia article are absolute nonsense. I'm especially not impressed by this particular dissertation of his: Why it's misleading. Especially for people in the west, they need to know the fact that Taiwan is not simply a "country". Things like not including Taiwan in map of China will cause significant consequences that Wikipedia readers absolutely deserve to know. Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company. We should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" or "Taiwan is not a country", which is non-neutral, misleading and may cause real life troubles to readers because of inaccuracy of infomation. Taiwan's political status dispute should be mentioned in the first sentence, because it's about its identity and may cause significant consequences. If this person were actually concerned with the wellbeing of certain people reading certain Wikipedia articles, then he should look at my own personal situation for a prime example. These days, Taiwan forms a major component of my identity, in more ways than one. If it weren't for the Taiwan Wikipedia article, I probably would have never discovered my Taiwanese ancestry, since even my parents didn't know about it before I discovered it. Anyway, regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I’m glad you’re enjoying editing and exploring wikipedia! I wouldn’t worry too much about In wkpd, they appear to be a WP:SPA who doesn't understand wikipedia policy and so is just saying whatever they think followed by “NPOV” or similar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, before I joined Wikipedia and made a series of edits (note: much of the content that I added was unnecessary, so I subsequently deleted a lot of it) to this article -- Taiwanese Australians -- the article claimed that prior to the 1950s emigration off of Taiwan was negligible. However, I have solid evidence that my own ancestors, who originated from Taiwan, "immigrated" (note: involuntarily) to Australia in 1942. Of course, that's only a few years earlier, though it's still technically earlier. I added a segment (Taiwanese Australians#Internment of Japanese and Taiwanese people in Australia during WWII) to the article explaining that the first known Taiwanese immigrants to Australia arrived in 1942. There could have been earlier Taiwanese immigrants, though I'm just unaware of them... And nobody else has bothered to go and challenge the claim that 1942 was the earliest year of Taiwanese immigration to Australia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

It has occurred to me that this statement prior to the 1950s emigration off of Taiwan was negligible doesn't actually claim that Taiwanese people first immigrated to Australia in the 1950s... Instead, what it's claiming is that Taiwanese people first starting leaving Taiwan (and immigrating to many different countries) in the 1950s. I suspect that this statement is mainly referencing the significant number of Taiwanese who migrated to the United States after the Chinese Civil War. In any case, Taiwanese people did emigrate from Taiwan prior to the 1950s, though it's unclear how common this was. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, HEJ. Unfortunately, I do not have infinite time to waste trying to defend myself in arbitration (Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). As far as I can tell, In wkpd is either trying to get me fully banned or partially banned from editing Wikipedia. I've been using this account for two years, and I don't own any other accounts because "sockpuppeting" isn't really my thing. Meanwhile, In wkpd has only been editing Wikipedia for a week, though they created this account nearly five years ago, and it seems to be some kind of "sleeper account", though I can't identify whether In wkpd operates other accounts as well. It is quite ironic how In wkpd has been studying the Wikipedia rules as if it were the Gospel, and yet they have still blatantly violated multiple rules themself (note: I'm not denying that I myself have broken rules too). Personally, I am guilty of not having thoroughly read Wikipedia's rules. I'm going to try to read up on them in the future. Regards, Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lol. Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion#File:Wikipedia_article_Taiwan_shows_up_as_1st_result_of_Google_search_calling_Taiwan_a_country.png -- Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding an edit.

@Horse Eye's Back:I noticed that you reverted the edit that I posted on the page for Taiwan. You said that my edit "as a sentence that doesnt make sense". I am confused as to what you meant. Can you please clarify so I may rectify any mistakes I may have made? JadeEditor (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence in question was "Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with ROC constitutional territorial claims as interpreted by the law (light green)” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I was more specifically referring to what exactly was my error. I changed the description due to the fact that this was not only a KMT claim, but the commonly accepted law in the ROC. JadeEditor (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is non-sensical, law can not interpret. I think your information is a bit dated, that hasn’t been law in the ROC since 1992. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t really mean like the law is a living thing with a mind, but that the law specifically says this as it’s legal reality (at least in the de jure and not de facto sense). I will be more clear in the future.

Also, the borders according the legal statute has not been followed to facilitate a change of national borders, and as such is still law, not just a claim made by any political party, at least by what I can tell. JadeEditor (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Are you aware of the changes to the ROC/Taiwan constitution in 1992 and the subsequent supreme court ruling? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to the [Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (1992)], then yes, I am aware of the change. And after going through it, I have not found indications that the claims over Mainland China have been revoked, only the subsequent repeal of laws relating to the Period of National Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion. Now, I did also look at the interpretation, although that was a long time ago, and so I will subsequently review it once more. JadeEditor (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC).

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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

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

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. 124.168.91.91 (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)

Socks

And who is [3] 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)

I-Ban warning

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” [4] 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 [5]. 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 [6]). 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)

2022 Winter Olympics

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

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)

Edit warring

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)

FYI

Hello. No, I don't know what's going on, but my blocking log,[7] 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 ;-)

<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...

This 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)