User talk:Horse Eye's Back
| This is Horse Eye's Back's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Notification of administrators without tools
|
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: |
| |
Hi Horse Eye's Back. Jerome F. Keating, which you created, was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome F. Keating. Cunard (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Since you asked, for clarification, I didn't bother to look at the freelancer.com listing at all. I just googled the name, Ben Cable, and noted what came up. BD2412 T 01:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
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: |
| |
A fresh pie for you!
JacktheBrown has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit! JacktheBrown (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
April 2025
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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- @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)
- @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)]
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Tom Krause assistance
Hi HEB, nice to meet you. I am the declared connected contributor working for Tom Krause (business executive). You recently made some changes some changes to that article, and I'd be grateful for your help in making some additional modifications as detailed on the Talk page. If you give your OK, I can also go ahead and incorporate this sentence on my own. Thank you for your time and review, RainBow123456789 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have replied on the article talk page, hopefully you will be happy with what I have to say (some bad news, some good) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
Disruptive Editing
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
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. Thank you. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Arkenstrone: I'm terribly sorry but can I ask you to explain? What do you feel is disruptive? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- @MOS:REVEREND and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (clergy), and I merged two sections which covered the same topic (changing just the two subtitles into one, no changes were made to the text). So I guess its up to you to explain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)]
- Any substantial edits should be taken to the talk page, especially edits that attempt to restructure the article, or remove whole paragraphs. Edits for removing "honorifics" were not done correctly, as you simply removed them without clarifying who the person was, leaving a lot of confusion. Best to leave those types of edits for people that are knowledgeable about the people in question so they can add short descriptive text after their name. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Arkenstrone: I am not aware of any policy or guideline which supports "Any substantial edits should be taken to the talk page," (this appears to directly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold) or that the "Edits for removing "honorifics" were not done correctly" (which appears to directly contradict the MOS) as such I challenge you to demonstrate their existence or retract your accusation of disruptive editing. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- You should be fully aware of how contentious editing this article has been over the last year or two, with many contributors performing drive-by "edits" in an attempt to destroy the article because they don't like it's content, perhaps because they are anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. So a very cautious approach has been taken to avoid making any substantial changes to the article. Because of this, material changes should go through the talk page. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have not actually seen "many contributors performing drive-by "edits" in an attempt to destroy the article because they don't like it's content" over the last year or two, nor can I find that in the page's edit history[2]. You're going to need to supply diffs or links. My approach was cautious, thats why instead of reverting you I'm asking you to provide policy and guideline based justification for your reverts which you are for some reason refusing to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- WP:BRD: "Don't be bold with potentially controversial changes; instead, start a discussion on the talk page first. Make no edits to the page until you have agreement." Arkenstrone (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2025 (UTC)]
- BRD is neither policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's common sense. But if that doesn't appeal to you, then WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS.
- When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense.
- Arkenstrone (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- That literally says to edit first and then discuss if that doesn't work... The opposite of what you are arguing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. That's what we did. But also: ]
- You gave me a disruptive editing warning over what we did... So was it disruptive editing or was I following WP:CONSENSUS? Not being cautious is not the same thing as being disruptive even if you want to say that fits. You have made an extremely serious accusation, I don't see many comparable edits in your edit history so I'm guessing you don't understand how serious that template you used was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the more minor edits which were reverted and then discussed. The portion of your edits that were highly disruptive was a reorganization of the article's support section for archeological analysis and mathematical + statistical analysis, and the wholesale removal of previously discussed sourced content which you were a party to. You've done this before: removed well-sourced paragraphs of the support section. We've already had the discussion on why it's RS, and the consensus was that it remains. Plus, it's a level 2 notice, not a level 3, level 4, or level 5 notice. This is why WP:CAUTIOUS is so important for seemingly contentious articles such as this one. Arkenstrone (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)]
- Yes I've done that before, its called challenging content and you still have not gotten consensus to include most of that stuff. WP:ONUS dude, thats on you not me... Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I'm being really really nice here and have been for like two years at this point and I don't think you understand that. Nothing you are describing is disruptive editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)]
- "We've already had the discussion on why it's RS, and the consensus was that it remains." I didn't catch that part before but thats bullshit. No such consensus exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Yes I've done that before, its called challenging content and you still have not gotten consensus to include most of that stuff.
- I'm not talking about the more minor edits which were reverted and then discussed. The portion of your edits that were highly disruptive was a reorganization of the article's support section for archeological analysis and mathematical + statistical analysis, and the wholesale removal of previously discussed sourced content which you were a party to. You've done this before: removed well-sourced paragraphs of the support section. We've already had the discussion on why it's RS, and the consensus was that it remains. Plus, it's a level 2 notice, not a level 3, level 4, or level 5 notice. This is why
- You gave me a disruptive editing warning over what we did... So was it disruptive editing or was I following WP:CONSENSUS? Not being cautious is not the same thing as being disruptive even if you want to say that fits. You have made an extremely serious accusation, I don't see many comparable edits in your edit history so I'm guessing you don't understand how serious that template you used was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- Nope. That's what we did. But also: ]
- That literally says to edit first and then discuss if that doesn't work... The opposite of what you are arguing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:43, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- It's common sense. But if that doesn't appeal to you, then
- BRD is neither policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- I have not actually seen "many contributors performing drive-by "edits" in an attempt to destroy the article because they don't like it's content" over the last year or two, nor can I find that in the page's edit history[2]. You're going to need to supply diffs or links. My approach was cautious, thats why instead of reverting you I'm asking you to provide policy and guideline based justification for your reverts which you are for some reason refusing to do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- You should be fully aware of how contentious editing this article has been over the last year or two, with many contributors performing drive-by "edits" in an attempt to destroy the article because they don't like it's content, perhaps because they are anti-Catholic or anti-Christian. So a very cautious approach has been taken to avoid making any substantial changes to the article. Because of this, material changes should go through the talk page. Arkenstrone (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Arkenstrone: I am not aware of any policy or guideline which supports "Any substantial edits should be taken to the talk page," (this appears to directly contradict Wikipedia:Be bold) or that the "Edits for removing "honorifics" were not done correctly" (which appears to directly contradict the MOS) as such I challenge you to demonstrate their existence or retract your accusation of disruptive editing. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
- Any substantial edits should be taken to the talk page, especially edits that attempt to restructure the article, or remove whole paragraphs. Edits for removing "honorifics" were not done correctly, as you simply removed them without clarifying who the person was, leaving a lot of confusion. Best to leave those types of edits for people that are knowledgeable about the people in question so they can add short descriptive text after their name. Arkenstrone (talk) 18:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)