User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Archives (Index)

2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March 2024/April 2024/May 2024/June 2024/July 2024/August 2024/September

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Give a read. I have no idea on why you cannot see that disclosing IP details to a Court of Law == disclosing the person behind the computer. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: I don't understand what you've written here, can you clarify? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming, your reply is in good faith —

(1) Wikimedia stores IP addresses of its users for 90 days since last login/edit/??. This is the data that is relied upon by Checkusers to detect socks; also, this 90 day limit means asking for check-using old socks is often useless because there is no data!

(2) Now, let's say that you have made what-I-feel-to-be-defamatory edits about me in some Wikipedia article on 6 PM (UTC), 1 April, 2020 and want to sue you. Assume, also, that you live in a country where laws around privacy are very weak.

(3) I (somehow) guess the country you are in and file a suit in that country against you. But, for certain, I cannot sue Horse Eye's Back — that's ridiculous. I need to know your real identity, somehow.

(4) I ask Wikimedia to provide whatever details they have about you. They comply and expectedly have nothing to offer except IP address and User-Agent.

(5) Now, I cannot sue an alphanumeric IP address anymore than a virtual user-name! But I see that the IP address belongs to an ISP (a zillion internet websites allow finding the ISP from an IP address; even the checkuser tool, probably) that is based in the country where I have filed the suit — that is, my initial guess about your location was correct.

(6) I request the Court to order the ISP to go through its logs and disclose the name (and other details) of the subscriber who was assigned that IP Address on 6 PM (UTC), 1 April, 2020.

(7) The ISP replies that the said subscriber was one Mr. Donald Duck, living in XYZ Pool, ...

(8) I can now send notice to Mr. Donald Duck and go after him. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get all that... The question is how does the WMF know who Horse Eye's Back is, they said name not IP address (and the name you would get from tracing back my IP as far as Mr. Donald Duck is not mine). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You very well understand that the "name of the authors" was an imprecise substitute for "identifying details" that were sought at the first place. I will appreciate if you do not seek to derail discussions in future by asking patently bad-faith queries. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) I had not understood it to be a euphemism, and I'm not convinced it is. How in the world are you understanding anything I've said as bad faith? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been here since 2008, and it looks like you have been here since 2018. I mean this in the nicest of ways, but don't go around telling people who have been on Wikipedia a lot longer than you have and have a clean block log (other than my account being compromised, admittedly due to my own carelessness over a decade ago) about getting blocked. Even the vandal warning templates don't mention the blocking policy at all on level 1 and don't use the word "block" until level 3. I am one of the nicer ones on here (although I did not used to be), but there's a lot of people who would really get pissed off over that. I've seen it many times, a lot of the time it ends at WP:AN/I, and a lot of the time somebody doesn't leave with a happy ending (often the person who started it), even if it's nothing more than a WP:TROUT. I suggest kindly and gently discussing matters you think are policy violations with experienced users, and then let an administrator threaten them with blocks if it needs to be done, because they have the teeth to actually do it (you can escalate things to WP:AN/I, or in this case WP:COIN if direct, non-threatening, non-condescending discussion isn't working). I submitted to change the username, thank you for that nudge. Blessings. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 17:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a direct quote from the relevant section of our naming policy (WP:ORGNAME) "A user who both adopts a promotional username and who engages in inappropriate advertising or promotional edits or behaviors – especially when made to their own user space or to articles about the company, group, or product – can be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and are often blocked much sooner than users who engage in only one of the two behaviors." I didn't mean any offense by it and I did not use it myself outside of the quote. I was warning you of potential danger, not threatening you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Starlink. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Ergzay (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergzay: lol, check the talk page Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ergzay: you can't post an edit warring warning... And then continue to edit war[1], how does that make any sense? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: As part of your edit warring on Starlink, you are also engaged in WP:UNCIVIL behaviour, summarizing your edit with "You obviously misunderstand what you've removed, it does not say what you think it does", i.e. making a claim about what another editor is thinking. I think this is not a helpful approach. Lklundin (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lklundin: the claim was accurate, the editor did misunderstand what they removed... It did not say what they thought it did. How is pointing that out unhelpful? IMO its AGF, do you want me to assume mallice instead of misunderstanding? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's another uncivil edit summary on Evo Morales here. Level 2 warning. Kire1975 (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think that establishes what you think it does" is uncivil? And note that I was right, it did not establish what you thought it did. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Building America's Future, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

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

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Qcne (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate that. Wikipedia is such a great collaborative place. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, thank you for starting the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clarissa Wei is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarissa Wei until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 13:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@YesI'mOnFire: you're almost certainly serving as the clean hand of a sockmaster, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atlantaborn. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was a fairly new editor who didn't know the AfD process. Thanks for telling me this! 🔥YesI'mOnFire🔥^{(ContainThisEmber?)} 10:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah no worries, you AGF and there is nothing wrong about that, tt wasn't obvious until the other socks jumped in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Legal affairs of the Tate brothers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legal affairs of the Tate brothers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

VQuakr (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: it is a wild transition from "No one is "attacking" you" [[2]] to minutes later nominating a page I just created and was working on for deletion[3] with no discussion at all... Especially as the edit just before you said "No one is "attacking" you" is you reverting me on a totally different page[4]. The level of personalization and aggression you are attaching to our interactions is making me uncomfortable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused about what constitutes an attack (hint: false accusations like this are a personal attack). Please review WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS, and consider striking the implication immediately above. The link above is the deletion discussion. VQuakr (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is making me even more uncomfortable... What false accusations do you think I'm making? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The false accusations of "aggression" you've made, for example at [5] and [6]. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I perceive your actions as aggression, I find them disturbing and disruptive to my work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collaborative environment; you do not have a right to work undisturbed and undisrupted. Maybe recalibrate your perception, because you do not have the right to make spurious accusations, either. VQuakr (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interact with dozens of editors collaboratively every day I edit, its been a long time since someone in good standing with the encyclopedia was as aggressive with me as you've been. Maybe two years or so... Given that I'm going to say that my perception is just fine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Your recent editing history at Electoral history of JD Vance 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; read about 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.
Articles for creation is not a consensus to split the main page. There is absolutely no need for split, and you (or that user) need a consensus for it. It is not my job to get a consensus for a merge because this is not a proposed merger, it's a contested split, and the initial proposal for a new subpage is what must now seek consensus. Reywas92^Talk 21:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made a bold edit... You were reverted. Maybe you are right that this is better covered elsewhere, but do it proper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reverted someone else's bold edit! User:Lukasdragon1 split the main article here and performed a bold WP:SPLIT to a new, unnecessary page without consensus. How can you possibly suggest I started this, that I'm not doing it properly? I appropriately contested and restored the status quo per Wikipedia:Splitting#Step_1:_Create_a_discussion and WP:BRD. If Lukasdragon1 or you want the subarticle split off, you need to do it properly and stop reverting my appropriate initial objection. Reywas92^Talk 21:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92... BRD is optional, with all due respect what are you talking about? Remember optional or not you didn't follow BRD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Oct 2017 I inserted content into the Secrecy of the installation sub-section of the Royal Naval Cordite Factory, Holton Heath topic, that added a link to the National Library of Scotland's Ordnance Survey map library.

With your 18:52 14 Jan 2021 edit of this topic, you tagged my content as 'Citation Needed'.

The guidance for the "cn" tag begins "To ensure that all Wikipedia content is verifiable, Wikipedia provides a means for anyone to question an uncited claim. If your work has been tagged, please provide a reliable source for the statement, and discuss if needed."

My content is a hyperlink to the website of the National Library of Scotland, one of the six legal deposit copyright libraries in the UK and Eire, and to a page there, which shows a side-by-side comparison of two editions of maps of the factory location published by the Ordnance Survey, which is the UK's official national mapping agency.

As a reliable reference to trustworthy sources, I am not sure how my hyperlink could be improved or a more appropriate citation given.

Could you please clarify why you have tagged it as needing a citation and what you would like me to do?

My thanks, 'MrEckLeckTick' MrEckLeckTick (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MrEckLeckTick: The text reads "The site was to the north-northeast of Holton Heath station, which was opened during the First World War to allow staff to reach the works. However, the site's location was omitted from WW2 Ordnance Survey maps as can be seen on this side-by-side comparison of the 1940s New Popular Edition 1 inch map with the same area from the 7th Series from a decade or so later." which isn't using it as a source its using it as source material for orignal research and then reporting the findings of that original research... Leaving the statement unsourced as no appropriate citation has been given. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - I don't follow your logic.

Can you please expand/amplify using clear English? MrEckLeckTick (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can't go beyond what the source actually says. You can't combine one map which says one thing with one which doesn't and then make a claim found in neither source based on that. The source actually needs to make the claim, otherwise it is original research which is fine a lot of places just not in a wikipedia article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]