User talk:Equine-man

Why did you remove my external links?
If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some external links you've added, please read Wikipedia's policies on spam, Wikipedia external link guidelines first. Because of Wikipedia's popularity, it has become a target for folks looking to promote their sites, which is against Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform.

Why did you remove my post about COI edits
'If you've come here because you want to know why I removed some of your posts and posted about COI edits, please read conflict-of-interest first.

Do not make personal attacks
Your depiction of User:Trusted user53 at WP:AIV was utterly inappropriate, and (unless you provide evidence) if you again accuse him or anyone else of inserting hoaxes into articles, you will be blocked for a violation of No personal attacks. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are a kind of personal attack, and none of this user's recent edits is anywhere close to "creating fake reference links". Nyttend (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Nyttend “creating fake references” might be the wrong terminology, but what is the correct terminology when you visit about 6 links the editor has inserted into other articles where there is no mention of the person he is saying the reference is about? Equine-man (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:.

I have blocked you for this comment above. None of the user's recent edits matches your description. In one, the name was added (and it's backed up by the citation, so it's a legitimate addition), and in the rest, an existing name was merely linked. Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Woah, that seems extremely heavy-handed . This could have been a teaching moment.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The teaching is that personal attacks are never acceptable. If I start spreading false information about you in an attempt to get you blocked, and I keep it up when given a firm warning, I deserve a boomerang, not merely discussion.  Nyttend (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you'll be patrolling AIV and hold this standard, be prepared to make many blocks on RC patrollers. Admins active there (such as and, and myself when I'm able) try to explain why the incourrect vandalism reports may be misguided and watch for further issues with the same editor. You obviously stand by the block, but I also stand by my belief that this was premature and excessive. You state that Equine-man was "spreading false information about [someone] in an attempt to get [them] blocked", which is ascribing motivations that I don't see evidence to be true. It looks more like they misunderstood the way Trusted user53 was linking names. Again, it was a teachable moment as opposed to outright personal attacks requiring an immediate block.  --  Ponyo bons mots 21:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want to belabor this, as I note the block has been lifted. However, I share Ponyo's surprise. I've handed out thousands of blocks and can count on the fingers of one hand (probably with change left over) the number that were for a bad report at AIV or another noticeboard. The only times I believe I have ever done so were if it was obviously a case of bad faith. That said, there have been multiple times I have had to gently correct editors for making reports that were either precipitous, or simply unjustified. And yes, a few cases where I had to issue a stern warning because they were making a habit out of it. I'm not going to call it a bad block. But I will say that I wouldn't have done it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request and discussion

 * Equine-man, blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not to punish. If you understand the issue and are willing not to do it again, I'm happy to unblock you now.  You don't have to agree with my conclusions, and you don't have to say "Sorry, I was wrong".  It can be as simple as a plan (not even something you say here) to provide links and evidence when you're making claims about people.  Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're not looking for an unblock, please don't use the unblock template. I'd be happy to look into the issue though. Could you provide a couple examples? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are all ten of the user's recent edits (after 6 April):


 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Adds a statement that Ursula Ilse-Neuman curated an exhibition; the sentence has two sources, and one of them verifies the new statement
 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Links pre-existing appearance of "Ursula Ilse-Neuman"
 * Uses "author-link" parameter to link "Ursula Ilse-Neuman", who was listed as an editor
 * Links "Margaret De Patta" in a title, probably not strictly appropriate per WP:MOS, but a minor issue at most
 * Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any disagreement from you, Equine-man? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * 1. [|This diff.] The reference does not contain any mention of Ursula Ilse-Neuman in the linked article.
 * 2. [|This Diff] Seems to be randomly inserted into article.
 * 3. [|This diff] Seems to have been randomly added to article. This link actually does point here, and does mention Don Tompkins, but see no reason why the link was added. I felt the links were being added to strengthen the case, even if the link was tenuous. Equine-man (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I really feel like you're messing up here. Could you please review your first example, and spend some time on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * [I've thrown in a new header, since this is a separate topic] Your links have some coding mistakes., , and  are what you meant to link, I believe.  Also, I've unblocked you because you're now discussing and providing links.  Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Elliodor


Hello, Equine-man. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Elliodor".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 20:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)