User talk:Horse Eye's Back

  1. Home
  2. Wiki



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

April 2025

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Assassin's Creed Shadows. 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. TheDeviantPro (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to join the talk page discussion or are you only interested in kicking ant hills after the ants are gone? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:notwally. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Do not call other editors "arrogant" and do not comment on my talk page anymore. I am not interested in your repeated personal attacks. – notwally (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Notwally: I didn't call you arrogant, that is a comment entirely on the content of your comments, and it seems to be you who is blowing their cool... I wrote "You should stop telling people that they "need" to do something which isn't a policy or guideline but is just the way Notwally thinks it should be done. Thats just obscenely arrogant and non-collegial." which as you can clearly see is describing a practice as arrogant, not a person... It says "thats" not "you're." Its generally not considered civil to ban someone from your talk page and then immediately make a comment on theirs... Also is this where you intended to place this comment? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Notwally: are you aware that using Twinkle for actions like this is WP:TWINKLEABUSE and could result in the loss of your Twinkle privilages? You seem to have made a lot of errors here and I'm giving to clean up your mess. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As appears to your pattern, you are making baseless accusations. Do not ping me again. I am not interested in engaging with you or your bad faith accusations. If you persist, I will bring you to ANI. – notwally (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're on my talk page hassling me... And you're threating me with ANI? Your accusation that "As appears to your pattern, you are making baseless accusations" is literally you making a baseless accusation. I was completely right that you were bullshitting about the personal attack, I did comment on the content not the contributor... It does say "thats" not "you're." It is considered impolite to jump to someones talk page after banning them from yours... And in this very conversation you have ignored content to make gratuitous comments about me personally. If you aren't interested in engaging then just walk away, don't continue to engage me on my talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to look at your recent time stamps before making asinine comments about "just walk away". Also, considering you made baseless accusations against me on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability (and refused to strike them), then come to my talk page to make more, and then continued them here, I would call that a pattern. So maybe quit your bullshit. Respond how you want, as I will not be doing so further unless it is to inform you of an ANI discussion if that is the route you want to go. It is quite telling that multiple other editors have raised disruptive editing by you on your talk page just in the past few days, and so please think carefully about your actions. – notwally (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just went straight from my talk page to cast aspersions and disagree with me at Talk:Scott Ritter[1], what are you talking about "Feel free to look at your recent time stamps before making asinine comments"? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Theroadislong. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theroadislong: you misunderstand, I'm not implying bad faith I'm worried about you. You don't appear to be taking the care and consideration you used to and that you jumped to templating someone who hadn't done anything to warrant it is just another example of the same. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Historicity of Jesus, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I think you used the wrong template, that is for disruptive editing. Are you making such a serious allegation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Historicity of Jesus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Stop your edit-warring; this ha dbeen discussed ad infinitum before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine

[edit]

Just a heads up--you've !voted twice in that discussion. SmolBrane (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SmolBrane: thank you for pointing that out, when I was directed to the discussion two months after the first comment I assumed that it was a new discussion and didn't read carefully enough to see my quick note. I struck the one which has not been responded to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bluerasberry conflict of interest

[edit]

We have had a lot of communication. I felt that we reached an impasse. I am here to talk if you want to continue any of the conversation threads. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:05, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem we keep coming back to is that you and I have different conceptions of conflict of interest (and mine is much closer to the community expectation), I don't think you mean any harm and I will admit to holding you to a high standard because of your prominence and history of strong performance... But its not confidence building when you say that "I am not immediately seeing the conflict in my activity here." and a half dozen other editors all say that they can clearly see the conflict in the activity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not an excuse and I take responsibility for what was definitely an error, but as an explanation, I do not find it easy to recognize conflict of interest in myself. I am at least as susceptible as anyone else to bias blind spot, confirmation bias, self-serving bias, and others. I can change behavior based on discussions with others but I am not often having solitary insights.
It is still my responsibility to manage bias and take blame for outcomes. The first change in my behavior that I am going to make is being thoughtful about my biases before writing for Signpost, and disclosing possible biases on the newsroom talk page. I think that will work because others should be able to detect my biases even if I cannot. The next change in my behavior is talking this over with colleagues, including the meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network. I am open to doing more. Over on the other page you said, "The problem is that isn't a one-off... You have repeatedly failed to meet community expectations around COI". That is accurate.
Thanks for the complement about prominence and strong performance. I also would much rather be seen as careless, neglectful, overconfident, or overprivileged than deceitful, so thanks for saying that you see me as not trying to cause harm. I would discuss more, but I need to step away from this conversation for a few days to manage something elsewhere. I appreciate feedback here and in previous conversations. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're in a bit of a tricky spot, its comparatively easy for me to avoid conflicts of interest because I can just avoid anything that even comes close to being too IRL for me... Your IRL and wikipedia overlap in ways that must be very challenging to manage, but I think its important that you set an excellent example for those who will follow the trail you and a relatively few brave others have blazed into the space between wiki volunteer and wiki professional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to propose to resolve our conversation for now. We can reopen it at any time. I have a couple of outcomes to share.
From meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network, we set up this yesterday - meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network/Best practices for contribution.
At User_talk:HaeB#Bluerasberry_COI I also proposed to close the conversation, until and unless someone wants to reopen it for discussion.
Thanks for the feedback. And again to your original point about specific text on talk page disclosure - I support it or any such changes for everyone, but just as a group, I with the other Wikimedians in Residence collectively oppose any of us being singled out to comply with non-official rules. The non-official requests are endless, and I push back on you and others to mandate that everyone have standard language. It is not my intent do mislead or deceive anyone, and before you mentioned it, it never occurred to me that it was possible for anyone to misunderstand what I thought was very clear disclosure that me having a university position meant that I am a university employee on a salary. I would sign support in a petition for everyone to do what you want, but for a lot of reasons, I personally do not want to be the one to unilaterally recognize and invent new and highly specific requirements where I can already see exceptions and problems which would need discussion. In my view, there should be community conversation before mandating very specific regulations, and I sincerely regret that after all these years, I am not seeing consensus on many basic issues. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: so unless I'm missing something Wikimedians in Residence collectively oppose any of you complying with the Signpost's COI rules because they are non-official? Huh? Please link this discussion among WiR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at the discussion I do not see you opposing the Signpost's COI rules, you seem to be conforming to expectations in hindsight so maybe I'm not understanding what "non-official rules" means in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the update from the discussion, which I just shared - meta:Wikimedians in Residence Exchange Network/Best practices for contribution. I am sharing as a demonstration that a conversation happened. Anyone can interpret the meaning of this themselves.
Right, I support all the COI rules and am not opposing any of them. I do have the position that I wish rules were easier to interpret. I also made the commitment to do routine disclosure in The Signpost newsroom. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of administrators without tools

[edit]
Greetings, Horse Eye's Back. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title:
  • Thank you for supporting this effort. Your contributions are an integral part of overall success, and an example for others to follow.
  • To stop receiving these notifications, remove your name from the list.

TolBot (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Talk

[edit]

Hi,

I saw your activity on some talk pages and I I just wondered how we all collectively could improve the following pages?:

Talk:Sources for the historicity of Jesus#Sources

Talk:Historical Jesus#Misquoted sources and inadequate sources

Talk:Christ myth theory

The last one was locked after I questioned the use of blog posts as sources for claims of academic authority. I think these articles are heavily biased and misrepresents the sources frequently, as well as misusing religious and biased sources, not academic ones. The pages are hijacked by a few very active users, are there anything rationally minded people could do about it? They don't allow a discussion even, but shuts it down very fast and block users rather than change. 58.99.101.165 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lock is for WP:BLOCKEVASION... I also think you're confusing academic and secular... There are certainly plenty of religious and biased academic sources. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Grant Cardone (May 23)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
I am being tempted to reject as this draft has been declined four times. The sources revolves supporting Trump's campaign.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Horse Eye's Back! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 12:52, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe: are you sure? That doesn't look like competent analysis to me... There is in fact sufficient significant coverage and I struggle to explain how you came to the conclusion you did by any path other than incompetence or error. Please explain yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see how a competent good faith editor could conclude that "The sources revolves supporting Trump's campaign." without making some sort of major mistake... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]