ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussions to User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2021/January. (BOT) |
Mickie-Mickie (talk | contribs) →Mass deletion on 1987 Lieyu massacre on March 7: new section |
||
Line 205: | Line 205: | ||
Thank you so much for your comments on Kiengir's talkpage. It was getting to the point where I wondered if it was me going mad. Anyway, cheers, I hope the user will reflect on your comments. I certainly am thinking about the way I would handle a similar conversation in future. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
Thank you so much for your comments on Kiengir's talkpage. It was getting to the point where I wondered if it was me going mad. Anyway, cheers, I hope the user will reflect on your comments. I certainly am thinking about the way I would handle a similar conversation in future. [[User:Boynamedsue|Boynamedsue]] ([[User talk:Boynamedsue|talk]]) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
||
== Mass deletion on [[1987 Lieyu massacre]] on March 7 == |
|||
[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|link=]] You have engaged in an [[WP:Edit warring|edit war]]  according to the continuous mass deletion repeated on [[:1987 Lieyu massacre]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#In talk pages|collaborate]] with others to avoid editing [[WP:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[WP:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]], rather than repeating malicious sabotage of mass deletion. Please note: |
|||
1. The legal references were listed for the concerned officials and population who still refuse to recognize the responsibility and international laws, then continuously defend the causes of operations as legitimate as per the serious arguments till today. |
|||
2. Edit war is disruptive with the mass deletion manipulated for the further operation. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare, especially started with an anonymous account to launch a cover-up operation. |
|||
3. It appears that more alt accounts will be set up to proceed further cover-up operation. It's really low to cheat the public by cutting off the legal references and evidences even with the belief as justifiable as per your ideology.''' |
|||
Please use the article's [[Help:Talk pages|talk page]] for controversial changes consensus before engaging the editing wars. You can post at an [[WP:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. It may be more appropriate to [[WP:Requests for page protection|request temporary page protection]]. Engaging in an edit war may lead to account being [[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]] again. [[User:Mickie-Mickie|Mickie-Mickie]] ([[User talk:Mickie-Mickie|talk]]) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:55, 7 March 2021
January 2021
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.Template:Z159 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)
- 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, 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- Absolutely! Such a shame that he decides to waste time trying to get notable content deleted... Spiderone 23:16, 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
@Tyw7: I was expecting an apology from you but the month is out and I don't have one, what gives? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Horse Eye's Back, no I am not sorry for the accusation. To me, you do seem very WP:BITEy. You expect an apology but none is coming. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher){{|Tyw7}} I'd. suggest you read Sro23's reply again. That you still refuse to apologize after seeing the admin's exonerating comments says more about you than Horse. BilCat (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- No actually, I don't think forced apologies are very productive. This all happened a month ago so why it's being brought up now escapes me. Sro23 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Sro23: I wasn’t trying to force an apology (not to get into a philosophical argument but I consider the concept of a forced apology to be an oxymoron), I was trying to figure out why Tyw7 went radio silent after relentlessly spamming me on multiple pages about this issue. I have my answer, I am satisfied. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- No actually, I don't think forced apologies are very productive. This all happened a month ago so why it's being brought up now escapes me. Sro23 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher){{|Tyw7}} I'd. suggest you read Sro23's reply again. That you still refuse to apologize after seeing the admin's exonerating comments says more about you than Horse. BilCat (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- I wasn't recommending or seeking a forced apology either. I was merely pointing out that given the exoneration, the refusal to apologize in good faith is telling. I deal harshly with suspected sockpuppets, and I'm usually right. One gets a good Spidey sense for socks after years of dealing with them for so many years. I can't count the times a user has blatantly lied about being a sock, only to have it clearly proven in the SPI. I think I've been wrong once in all that time. So no, Horse did nothing wrong here, and the attacks here were totally unjustified. Remember, reminding someone about not biting newbies isn't an excuse to eat the oldies! BilCat (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
CN
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)
- (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)
- 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'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Horse Eye's Back You have to realize that Johnbod is 100% right. I see you keep spamming CN-tags like there is no tomorrow. WP:CITENEED#When not to use this tag says that you should immediately remove trivial or unlikely-to-be-true claims. However, it CLEARLY shows that if the claims seem plausible or seems related to the article, you should make a reasonable effort at trying to find sources yourself. Only after which can you add a CN-tag, or remove the content and address in your edit summary that the content shall only be returned when a reliable source is cited. It is becoming evident that despite many editors informing you of your actions, you seem to be in denial. If you do not stop I will start reverting your tags for disruptive editing. There are already "refimprove" templates in most of these articles. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Wretchskull: It doesn’t say that you are required to remove trivial or unlikely to be true claims, action is *required* only in the event of a BLP issue. Do you have anything which backs up your argument that "Only after which can you add a CN-tag, or remove the content and address in your edit summary that the content shall only be returned when a reliable source is cited.” because thats not in the linked section. It seems to say the opposite "then consider making a reasonable effort to find a reference yourself.” Apparently there is no requirement to attempt to find a source, its an entirely optional step. Also if theres already a template at the top of the page and I added a CN that was a mistake, it certainly does not apply to most and you either need to retract that statement or provide an overwhelming number of diffs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Horse Eye's Back You have to realize that Johnbod is 100% right. I see you keep spamming CN-tags like there is no tomorrow. WP:CITENEED#When not to use this tag says that you should immediately remove trivial or unlikely-to-be-true claims. However, it CLEARLY shows that if the claims seem plausible or seems related to the article, you should make a reasonable effort at trying to find sources yourself. Only after which can you add a CN-tag, or remove the content and address in your edit summary that the content shall only be returned when a reliable source is cited. It is becoming evident that despite many editors informing you of your actions, you seem to be in denial. If you do not stop I will start reverting your tags for disruptive editing. There are already "refimprove" templates in most of these articles. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I feel the need to second the kind of points made by Johnbod above. I came here via Dead hedge, a generally informative page that was crying out for some clean-up, if only for the sake of *clarity* (example). Instead, the page just got cn-tagged (bombed?), often after the sort of non-controversial, general statements that can be notoriously tricky to source appropriately. Like others here, I feel sure that there are plenty of genuinely useful alternative tasks open to you. 86.186.155.177 (talk) 13:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
- Who are you? I don’t see *any* significant contributions on your account. If something is notoriously tricky to source appropriately then maybe the person you should be yelling at is the user who added it not the user who tagged it? You have talked to that user about unsourced additions, right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 23 February 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)
- There're many ways to archive. I decide how to achieve. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:03, 29 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)
- 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)
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 [1] 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 [2]. 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 [3] 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)
- 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)
- Ahem, thats an edit to the overview not the lead/intro. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:12, 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)
- 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 [3] to Military of Carthage around the same time? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:58, 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)
- Really? I’m the only one? Just five days ago you were warned about making unsourced additions to Ronald Reagan [2]. 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Uyghur genocide has an RFC
Uyghur genocide has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification and good work notifying such a wide range of involved editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Uyghur Genocide talk comment
Hi Horse Eye's Back. I have left the discussion because no resolution has been reached, and I assume you guys know more so I'll just leave it like this. I do not want animosity between any of us; I am sorry if I rubbed you guys the wrong way or if things got heated. Cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 10:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
COI
I do not have a COI and do not appreciate being accused of such.Belain1737 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Please answer this under the COI notice on your talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
cn tags
FWIW, while claims of vandalism are silly, and posting to AIV about this is really silly (and annoying), there really is no significant benefit to tag-bombing articles. Right or wrong, it is guaranteed to piss off a lot of people, for zero benefit. You could literally (the real definition of literally, not the newfangled definition) tag 95%+ of sentences with a {{cn}} tag. I'd recommend saving it for things you think are much more important. This is not in my capacity as an admin - I suspect "enforcement" of this would fail miserably, and I wouldn't support trying to - but in my capacity as an observer of the Wikipedia ecosystem. If you enjoy adding the tags, so be it. But surely there is something you enjoy just as much that will actually benefit other people or the encyclopedia more, and annoy others less? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: I appreciate the advice, I have to say I’m still a little shellshocked at the response editorial actions have on people (it is far far from what I expected, we’re called editors not writers after all). If I may explain a bit on the enjoyment issue... No its not what I enjoy most, what I enjoy most is new article creation but I’ve attracted some stalkers through diligent sockpuppet hunting. About a month ago I created Vectrus and Atlantic Diving Supply and then had to endure a series of attack accounts which got shockingly far before being indeffed. That was the last straw for me, I think I’m in the mid dozens when it comes to dedicated attack accounts coming for me. Now its possible for a brand new sockpuppet or VPN IP to revert major changes with almost absolute impunity, its happened time and time again which makes me play a weird game of 3rr chicken with what I very well know is an attack account. Now what these accounts can not do is undue a large amount of rather insignificant changes in a short period of time, the filters catch that every time. So what I did was add minor editing to the wikipedia reading I was already doing. I was already doing that for BLP claims as my reading of policy is that its a violation to overlook any BLP concerns you come across. For what its worth it seems to have worked vis-a-vis the attack accounts although I’m sure that this explanation here is kind of tipping my hand. I hope you understand a little more where I’m coming from, any more advice you have would be appreciated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- As an observer of the Wikipedia ecosystem do you have any idea why it annoys people so much? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I have great advice, really. I mostly wanted you to know that calm, rational people who don't go around screaming "vandalism" also dislike tag-bombing, not to act like a parent or something. It doesn't bother me as much, so it's hard to get inside their heads. But it does bother me a little too, and as I think about it, it's hard to put into words, so I'll try, as an exercise. Maybe other people have the same feelings, but just feel it much more strongly? What's inside my head is:
- I have no objection to sparing use of {{cn}} tags to identify items that a more questionable than other things, but not so questionable that they should just be removed (like an {{O RLY?}} tag?); it's the addition of many, many tags about things that - yes, in a perfect world, will eventually need to be cited before we publish the final version and shut it down - aren't all that doubtful. I suppose it's like adding a lot of noise, so the signal is that much harder to hear.
- I suppose it's partly due to the implied attitude (I said, and mean, "implied", I'm not saying this is actually your attitude) that "here are some things that I can't be bothered to fix, but I think other people should do the work to fix them".
- It's often so pointless, I guess it's a little annoying because people think they're being more useful than they really are. Trying to think of an analogy here and failing... I guess it's like you might feel if you saw someone powerwashing the right left side of all the cars in a parking lot, for free, but leaving the rest of the cars grimy. I mean, it's not actually harmful, and it's someone else doing the work, but it's so pointless, it's actually kind of annoying that someone thinks it's of use? Or if you wouldn't find it annoying, you can imagine how others might?
- It makes a page look ugly, which is not a small issue to people who spent time building the article up to where it is now (note that this is not my view, because there are no pages I've built up).
- I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a WP:NOTAGBOMBING essay somewhere; if you want to hunt it down that might be more thorough and more elegant.
- added later: It's at WP:Tag bombing.
- Anyway, I'm procrastinating now so I'll stop. I'm sorry you've attracted dedicated attack accounts. I wish I had better advice on that front. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking the time to explain. Perhaps we need a “what tag bombing is not” WP:NOTTAGBOMB addition to that essay. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I have great advice, really. I mostly wanted you to know that calm, rational people who don't go around screaming "vandalism" also dislike tag-bombing, not to act like a parent or something. It doesn't bother me as much, so it's hard to get inside their heads. But it does bother me a little too, and as I think about it, it's hard to put into words, so I'll try, as an exercise. Maybe other people have the same feelings, but just feel it much more strongly? What's inside my head is:
- @Floquenbeam: Thanks also. Your list is a good summary of things people have said to my tagging of articles. I think in essence, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a perception, sometimes unjustified, that the tagger just being lazy. I've had that one thrown up at me recently. However, I always remind objectors that reliable sources are required, not a suggestion, and that, for me, the other option is outright removal of unsourced text. They usually react even stronger to that suggestion, but that's the policy we're supposed to follow. Horse and both edit a lot of articles with technical information, especially aircraft related, and I'm amazed at how long some inaccurate information remaims in an article. Often, almost as soon as I tag an item, a reliable source/correction appears. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. However, some people, myself included, don't like to feel that we're doing work for someone else who is fully cabable of doing it themself, and that's part of the reason for such a strong reaction to perceived tag bombing. Such an attitude can be dangerous in the long run because it undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. (That could make a good start to the WP:NOTTAGBOMB essay. I might just do it!) BilCat (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think BilCat raises an important point about the usefulness of individual targeted tags, which presumably gets lost if everything is tagged. I think there's also the issue that in many cases it's clear to most editors that something is unsourced, so the tag doesn't actually add anything but another watchlist diff to check. CMD (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- That is an important point to consider. I think its also important to consider that 99% of users of wikipedia pages are not wikipedia editors but normal people without any familiarity with wikipedia’s sourcing conventions. A shockingly large proportion of people believe what they read on wikipedia whether its sourced or not. Along with the practical we have to consider the ethical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ethically I think Wikipedia's citation practices are more rigorous than many other sources that readers may also read and believe. As another thought, if you tag, consider adding the |date=February 2021 field so AnomieBOT doesn't chase you around adding yet another edit to the watchlist. CMD (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t really think thats a good enough answer, we have to examine our own responsibilities independent of what others do or don’t do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Presumably why the requirements developed into what they are. The question at hand is whether adding cn tags helps substantially with that goal (not sure it does), and whether this offsets the apparent frustration it may generate among other volunteers. Anyway, this is a bit off the main question of potential issues adding cn tags and ways that could be ameliorated, which I hope I have added to. CMD (talk) 03:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don’t really think thats a good enough answer, we have to examine our own responsibilities independent of what others do or don’t do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ethically I think Wikipedia's citation practices are more rigorous than many other sources that readers may also read and believe. As another thought, if you tag, consider adding the |date=February 2021 field so AnomieBOT doesn't chase you around adding yet another edit to the watchlist. CMD (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- That is an important point to consider. I think its also important to consider that 99% of users of wikipedia pages are not wikipedia editors but normal people without any familiarity with wikipedia’s sourcing conventions. A shockingly large proportion of people believe what they read on wikipedia whether its sourced or not. Along with the practical we have to consider the ethical. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think BilCat raises an important point about the usefulness of individual targeted tags, which presumably gets lost if everything is tagged. I think there's also the issue that in many cases it's clear to most editors that something is unsourced, so the tag doesn't actually add anything but another watchlist diff to check. CMD (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Or you could simply not tag bomb. I'm just saying. When I read a page and see one of the typical tags that you have been placing, it annoys me. The underlying message is twofold: first it says to me "Horse Eye's Back thinks I am to dimwitted to identify statements that need citations without help". Second it sends the message "Horse Eye's Back is not willing to find a citation but instead wants someone else to do it for them". In the time it took you add twenty tags to Waveguide flange, Waveguide (optics) and Waveguide, you could have added a single citation and done far more to improve the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Thanks also. Your list is a good summary of things people have said to my tagging of articles. I think in essence, it's a knee-jerk reaction to a perception, sometimes unjustified, that the tagger just being lazy. I've had that one thrown up at me recently. However, I always remind objectors that reliable sources are required, not a suggestion, and that, for me, the other option is outright removal of unsourced text. They usually react even stronger to that suggestion, but that's the policy we're supposed to follow. Horse and both edit a lot of articles with technical information, especially aircraft related, and I'm amazed at how long some inaccurate information remaims in an article. Often, almost as soon as I tag an item, a reliable source/correction appears. That's the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. However, some people, myself included, don't like to feel that we're doing work for someone else who is fully cabable of doing it themself, and that's part of the reason for such a strong reaction to perceived tag bombing. Such an attitude can be dangerous in the long run because it undermines the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. (That could make a good start to the WP:NOTTAGBOMB essay. I might just do it!) BilCat (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's your opinion. Horse knows his skill set better than you do, and he may not have felt he knew the topic well enough to do it himself. Or you could have added the needed citations in the time it took to write your response here. You must just be lazy. ;) BilCat (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear I didn’t tag bomb, tag bombing describes unjustified use of tags. My use of tags was both justified and per WP:TAGBOMB (as much as anything can be “per” an essay) the tags I used don’t require an extensive explanation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are also pages which I didn’t create but which I’ve completely bootstrapped, good examples are Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation (1 source to 27), NCSIST (~a dozen unique sources to 72), and Agriculture in Taiwan (17 to 50). There are at least a hundred other examples. In addition I have well over a hundred article creations, you have five [4]... Why are you lecturing me again? The quality of my work and contributions to the project are beyond question, never forget wikipedia is a voluntary project and here volunteers get to pick and choose how to contribute to the project as long as they stay within out policies and guidelines. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am unwatching this page now and turning off notifications from you so that I will not see a notice if you ping me or link to my username.
- I have no use for editors who think that new article creation is the only kind of editing worth doing, and who disrespect those of us who prefer to improve existing pages.
- For the record:
- You have made 8,595 edits to 2,734 pages since your first edit on 2020-09-25.
- I have made 55,804 edits to 18,615 pages since my first edit on 2006-06-09.
- --Guy Macon (talk) 03:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: You came to another user's talk page to dump on him. I'm not surprised you got some pushback. Please realize that many editors would simply leave Wikipedia after all the crap Horse has been getting from sock stalkers, and your attitude isn't likely to make him want to stay. And, for the record, he previously edited under Special:Contributions/Horse_Eye_Jack, as his user page clearly states. I'll let you check how long he's edited and how many contributions he had under that name, and then you're free turn off notifications from me too if you so choose, if you hadn't already. :) BilCat (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Guy Macon: The entire point was that there is no one right way to edit, that appears to have gone over your head. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand some people. User:Guy Macon shows up here uninvited to pile on, accuses Horse of disruptive editing, and then wants to be left alone. Very odd. I guess he's had a bad day somewhere. BilCat (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I’m confused by their repeated claims of being disrespected that appear to only exist in their head, whether its reading an ad-hominem attack into a Cn tag or somehow interpreting a very clear argument against there being one right way to edit wikipedia as a direct attack on their own way of editing. Ironically before this they were an editor I respected greatly. Unfortunately going forward I find it hard to have respect or admiration for editors who shitpost on other people’s talk pages and then rage quit when politely challenged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I see the rage quit was comprehensive, that message they left on your talk page is something else, "I just turned off notifications from you, and I did not read whatever you decided to ping me over. I do not wish to have any further interactions with you. Please leave me alone. You can reply to this if you wish, but I won't read it.”[5] Just wow. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't understand some people. User:Guy Macon shows up here uninvited to pile on, accuses Horse of disruptive editing, and then wants to be left alone. Very odd. I guess he's had a bad day somewhere. BilCat (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. Assuming good faith, we all have bad days, and sometimes issues in real life affect our behavior on Wikipedia. If that's the case here, then hopefully he'll be able to get back to the person we knew shortly. I'll drop the issue at this point, as I have no desire to keep flogging dead equines. (There's enough of that going on there!! BilCat (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Georgia and WIKISTALKING
Stop with the wikistalking and nonsense messages on the talk page.PailSimon (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- You are edit warring on Anti-Georgian sentiment[6][7][8][9], you got an edit warring warning. What about that is nonsense? I also don’t think we’ve interacted in at least a week, what is the claim of wikistalking based on? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do not confuse reverting to the long term stable version with edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- But you aren’t doing that, you keep reverting to different versions. You need to gain a consensus instead of edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're clearly not paying attention to the edits then as I have consistently reverted to the exact same long-term stable version.PailSimon (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Congratulations! That was your last post on my talk page! If you would like to make more wild accusations without supporting them with a cogent argument or diffs please ping me on your talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're clearly not paying attention to the edits then as I have consistently reverted to the exact same long-term stable version.PailSimon (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- But you aren’t doing that, you keep reverting to different versions. You need to gain a consensus instead of edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do not confuse reverting to the long term stable version with edit warring.PailSimon (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
ANI
Please see here.PailSimon (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
East Asian socksphere
It seems a remarkable coincidence that right after I wring out a bunch of sock edits two basically new users spring up to just edit this article. I can't place them though, and they're not restoring the edits I removed but making new ones outside of my behavioural experience. Worth your eyes, if you're not too tired of dealing with ANI and your general Wikipedia life. What is it about this article? So many editors in the history have such odd contribution history. CMD (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think my plate is full for the moment so I’l avoid wading into that messy page again. I gave them a once over and I would concur that those accounts do appear to be remarkably coincidental. On the larger issue of why theres so much disruption in that space I would hazard a guess that we’re looking at a combination of rising nationalist sentiments in that area and within diasporas originating from that area and increasingly assertive government presence on social media and the internet from the regional governments. Internet users in that region are also disproportionately likely to already use a VPN which reduces the cost of entry and learning curve involved in transitioning from a recently blocked editor to a serial socker. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- No problem, your plate is quite full. On the page, it just seems oddly obscure. If it was one repeated sock-farm I'd chalk it up to an obsession, but it appears to be multiple farms. It's quite remarkable that a two-day old account is familiar with boomeranging. CMD (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- I like to call them baby Athenas because they spring fully formed into editorship like Athena sprang fully formed into adulthood from the head of Zeus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- No problem, your plate is quite full. On the page, it just seems oddly obscure. If it was one repeated sock-farm I'd chalk it up to an obsession, but it appears to be multiple farms. It's quite remarkable that a two-day old account is familiar with boomeranging. CMD (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
No header
Hi friend,
I just saw that you joined rather recently again - me too, although for the first time. I was wondering if you could let me know anything about your motivation for editing articles (obviously, you are an expert on certain (all?) topics regarding China) and if you have any tips for beginners.
Furthermore, I wanted to do a slight edit to the Wikipedia page on War (specifically put a link to the Wikipedia page of Transition from Ming to Qing where this war is first mentioned; there are other similar long-hanging fruits; this was how I ended up on your profile). However, the page is only semi-open - maybe you can help by letting me know how I can still make the change and then (hopefully) accept it?
Best wishes, L LarsOH94 (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#PailSimon. // Timothy :: talk 18:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you so much for your comments on Kiengir's talkpage. It was getting to the point where I wondered if it was me going mad. Anyway, cheers, I hope the user will reflect on your comments. I certainly am thinking about the way I would handle a similar conversation in future. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Mass deletion on 1987 Lieyu massacre on March 7
You have engaged in an edit war according to the continuous mass deletion repeated on 1987 Lieyu massacre. Users are expected to collaborate with others to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeating malicious sabotage of mass deletion. Please note:
1. The legal references were listed for the concerned officials and population who still refuse to recognize the responsibility and international laws, then continuously defend the causes of operations as legitimate as per the serious arguments till today.
2. Edit war is disruptive with the mass deletion manipulated for the further operation. Wikipedia is not the place for espionage warfare, especially started with an anonymous account to launch a cover-up operation.
3. It appears that more alt accounts will be set up to proceed further cover-up operation. It's really low to cheat the public by cutting off the legal references and evidences even with the belief as justifiable as per your ideology.
Please use the article's talk page for controversial changes consensus before engaging the editing wars. You can post at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. It may be more appropriate to request temporary page protection. Engaging in an edit war may lead to account being blocked again. Mickie-Mickie (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)