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

January 2021

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 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. 68.228.34.71 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Stalking

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Per the linked page "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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[1][2][3]? 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

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.”[4] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Curious comment

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)

BRCC

Hey, I know we are disagreeing on the Black Rifle Coffee Company article but this is a "hats off to you" message. I think your comment about waiting a week to see what consensus says is a good call. I've seen lots of cases where a "you say - I say" sort of discussion turns into an edit war. I think an agreement to wait is a good call. Even if we never convince the other, we won't have the edit warring frustration on top. Springee (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I didn't see that you had done this[[5]] when I wrote the above. As a show of good faith (you have certainly shown as much) I'm OK leaving the content in while we wait for more input. Springee (talk)

Thanks for the kind words, I think given the BLP concern I’m just as happy keeping it off the page for now. I’ve made a relevant suggestion on the talk page. Thank you again. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

You may be interested in some foundational works in modern historiography. From the previous generation, there is George Ostrogorsky's Byzantine Commonwealth (note commonwealth (or "common weal") is the traditional English translation of res publica), and from this one there is Kaldellis's The Byzantine Republic and his Romanland and the work of Yannis Stouraitis (e.g. [6]. Throughout the empire's existence, there was never a "constitutional" method of imperial succession, and there was never a hereditary monarchy as such; in theory, all emperors were acclaimed by The People (normally represented by the army) and the Senate. This was as true in the 15th century as it was in the 1st. It's also possible, as is often done, to speak of the Roman empire, before Augustus, because what else does one call an imperial colonial power governing kings and countries? Anyway, China Daily can go burn but don't accuse me of pushing pet theories, if anything, that is the assertion commonly levelled at Kaldellis. Many regards for your work! GPinkerton (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I will give it a read, apologies if I was too strident. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sleeper INTSF

Noticed a potential INTSF account earlier this month, came back to my attention now and I'm sure. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ineedtostopforgetting in case you've noticed anything as well. It's older than the oldest currently noted on the LTA page! CMD (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Good work! Its like archeology with the old ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please

I don't want to be rude to my fellow editors but I respectfully ask you not to write on my personal page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@STSC: can you be more specific? Is this about your use of misleading edit summaries on your talk page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not misleading because the messages were archived into the history and they can be retrieved anytime. STSC (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@STSC: They were already in the history, you did not archive them into the history. Your archive can be found at User talk:STSC/Archive 1 and does not contain those supposedly “archived” messages. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

There're many ways to archive. I decide how to achieve. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you can try to achieve however you want, but what constitutes a talk page archive is not really up for debate. Please see Help:Archiving a talk page for help on properly archiving discussions from your page. Obviously you are not required to archive anything, you can just delete it but you can’t call that deletion/reverting archiving because it isn't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Completely Unexplained Post on my Talk Page

You recently posted a warning on my talk page not only objecting to some of my edits but accusing me of vandalism. The fact I know I have not engaged in any vandalism aside, you left no further explanation whatsoever other than to say it was my edits re The First Taiwan Straits Crisis. You did not specify what edits I made you thought were vandalism however. I did not vandalize that page, and my content has not been deleted, though it was moved and re-formatted by other editors, none of whom were you. I am very confused as to what you're talking about.OgamD218 (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Does this [7] jog your memory? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is an edit of mine, mostly unchanged and certainly not any form of vandalism. The editor who changed part of it did not call it out as vandalism. I will be following up on the changes thie editor made after further research. My understanding is that the PRC retained sovereignty over the islands in question, if that is the case, then the conflict was at least a nominal PRC victory, though some may argue it was also a KMT strategic or geo-political victory. Irregardless, it would objectively not be "status quo ante bellum" however. If I am incorrect, which is entirely possible that is one thing but at no point would I have engaged in vandalism. I suggest you learn what exactly (or even remotely) constitutes vandalism and until then should refrain from accusing other editors of it.OgamD218 (talk) 03:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I was not the one who reverted you, please take your content dispute elsewhere. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No one reverted me, the content you reference was edited by a user who unlike you did not see any reason to post to my talk page a totally baseless claim of vandalism, which is the only content dispute I have with re to this subject.OgamD218 (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems that a large number of people have posted such totally baseless claims on your talk page, do you engage with all of them in this way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

No you're actually the only one to do this, though given your refusal to explain how my edit amounted to vandalism or for that matter anything other than slight change in words, and you're decision to try and deflect to my talk page-kind of an odd maneuver since even the few conflicts i've had, none are similar to this, i do not get accused of vandalism, any issues I have had the other editor even if we disagreed actually makes a case-unlike you whose just ducking and hiding. Idk if you have any idea how the rules on wikipedia work but now that I take a look at your talk page, it seems you are in a perpetual state of conflict for your nonsensical behavior such as this. If a "large number of people" have posted on my talk page idk how to describe the users who have problems with you. I will ask you one final time, do you have any basis at all on which to defend that vandalism warning on my talk page? Bringing up other conflicts is not an explanation for how you think an edit is vandalism and deferring to an editor who does not think it is vandalism is also not an answer, it is actually on you to justify your own actions.OgamD218 (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Really? I’m the only one? Just five days ago you were warned about making unsourced additions to Ronald Reagan [8]. Note that this whole discussion should have taken place on your talk page, if you actually wanted to have a conversation about this rather than harangue me you would not be on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yea no that wasn't an accusation of vandalism however but it was posted by a party actually involved in the editing issue unlike here, actually involved a reversion, unlike your nonsense and another difference would be i actually needed to take time before responding. Bringing up my talk page bc you don't have any idea what you're doing an can't defend your activity is really petty, I kept asking you why you labeled an edit vandalism, I did not bring up that your talk page shows bimonthly edit war warnings, stalker accusations, interaction bans, i could go on but no need.OgamD218 (talk) 07:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Because it appeared to be vandalism, are you saying it was just the addition of unsourced material to a wikipedia page after you had been warned not to do so? Perhaps like this edit you made to [9] to Military of Carthage around the same time? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

So it appeared to be vandalism but you did not remove it? seems you screwed up. Also that content you're referring too in what appears to be another example stalking by you, is cited in the main body of the article. I know you're not very good with following the rules of wiki but sources aren't always needed in the intro. At this time I will proceed conclusively that you had zero foundation at all in making that vandalism accusation, distorting other posts on my talk page and displaying your own ignorance of the rules is not is a pretty obvious and desperate deflection however.OgamD218 (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Ahem, thats an edit to the overview not the lead/intro. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

See! You're capable of understanding the rules! At least kinda sometimes, now just go and learn how things like edit warring and edit stalking and most importantly vandalism.OgamD218 (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I’m glad I could be helpful to you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)