User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2022/February

Happy Chinese New Year!
🐯🐯🐯 — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Where does it say "The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else'?
Perhaps I am wrong but I read the given sources, and none of them says (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else).

Maybe I missed it but can you please show me the source and the paragraph that says that statement? If it's not in the source then it's just false information and unsourced original research. And why I've reverted it. Destinyseeker89 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that you didn't see any of the other points I'm beginning to think that you actually haven't read the sources... Do you still stand by "The three given sources does not say (Chinese styled) meritocracy anywhere in its article or that the Chinese gov prioritise stability above everything else. And it does not even call Chinese system as flawed. Instead Christian science monitor article said that democracy was flawed. Also China gov isn't a single party since there are other parties in the system. Give source to support the changes." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question and seems like an irrelevant strawman argument. I simply asked a basic question. Which source says (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else)? Can you point out the source and paragraph? I read all 3 sources and wasn't able to find that statement at all. And it seems like original research to make China seem like it is single minded. That statement (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else) seems rather narrow minded as China probably values alot more like prosperity and other things and why I am curious on where you got that statement from. Destinyseeker89 (talk) 18:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Its not a strawman, its you... I didn't say that the sources don't support the use of Chinese style, the imperfect nature of the Chinese political system, stability, and its single party nature, I just provided your quote. Now are you saying that you retract 3/4 of your contentions? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You still have not answered the question at all but just dodging it by deflecting. It makes me realise you cannot answer it. You are putting in original unsourced research and then getting angry and chucking a tantrum at me when I ask you for proof. You wrote (The Chinese system prioritizes stability over all else). That's your own opinion and inappropriate for Wikipedia. As unsourced original research is not allowed. None of the sources even remotely says that statement. Destinyseeker89 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That was what I think the source is saying "more stable authoritarian systems like China" etc, just like with the other three. If you want a more explicit source or to reword it thats fine, but you said there were four things that weren't in the sources yet you've only brought one up here. Why is that? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: See Sockpuppet investigations/MangoTareeface9/Archive Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 2022 Winter Olympics. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be the WP:LEAD, the content is actually supposed to be in some ways syntheses of the body. If you know that you don't have consensus for your change to the lead of a major article yet you make it anyway don't throw a hissy fit at the person who happens to revert you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we can't cram everything into the lead. The lead sentence only talks about the explicit reason given by the boycotting countries, so we go by the sources where 9 out of 10 quoted human rights in general. The body also has other contents besides the specific language you wanted to force into the lead, so it would be undue anyway. As for consensus, 3 editors already waited over 1 day after pinging for you to leave input in Talk before I made the edit. CurryCity (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not what WP:CONSENSUS is, the conversation was still open and remains unclosed nor does there actually appear to be a consensus within the discussion. Also this does not explain the warning. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We all want to WP:AGF about you but the evidence are pointing the other way. CurryCity (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Boycot. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're going to have to be more specific, my last edit to that article was yesterday and was a revert . Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I typed too fast and put in a different article. See Boycott#Diplomatic boycott. CurryCity (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats a single revert, it was another editor who reverted you the second time . Also theres no OR or improper synthesis in there. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources used allegations of atrocities, your edit stated genocide in wikivoice. CurryCity (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No it didn't, it just linked Uyghur genocide which is the common name for the atrocities as decided by consensus. "A number of nations participated in a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics to protest the Uyghur genocide and human rights situations in China." The statements "Uyghur genocide" and "atrocities against Uyghurs" are functionally identical as you yourself demonstrated by linking atrocities against Uyghurs to Uyghur genocide . Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * not true and WP:COMMONNAME is not for body. We can continue this on the article's Talk. CurryCity (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What isn't true? It would not be appropriate to have a discussion about your personal allegations against me on the article's talk. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from using final warning templates right away, not checking your own reasoning and facts before dropping them, every time creating a new section on my Talk page. Thank you. CurryCity (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Your recent editing history at 2022 Winter Olympics 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Corinal (talk) 3 February 2022 (UTC) Note that despite being dated "23:49, 29 January 2022" this comment was actually made 18:45, 3 February 2022
 * you're going to have to be specific. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been repeatedly reverting edits from multiple editors without proper explanation, and refusing to engage in discussion for long periods only to later revert edits the moment they are made. Please either try to find consensus on the talk page rather than repeatedly editing the article, or disengage. If this behavior continues you may be reported and action may be taken. Corinal (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Lets see some diffs, copy pasting from the warning won't do. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All diffs will be provided if you are reported as is required. However i don't see why you're asking for a diff considering you have repeatedly revert my edits and recently made this revision of another editor's edit, despite refusing to engage in discussion for a long period, as stated on the talk page, if you wish not to engage you do not have to, you can choose not to edit the article, but you cannot simply repeatedly revert multiple editors changes without engaging in discussion. Corinal (talk)
 * NOTE: This warning is to alert you to formally alert you to the edit warring policy, and to alert you that your edits may be considered edit warring, it is not to provide a full case of how you are edit warring, which will be done if you continue and are reported. Corinal (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ASPERSIONS diffs actually should be provided. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have provided evidence, and explained it quite clearly. It seems you did this bludgeoning with another editors claim that you were engaging in WP:OR on the very same page, despite it being clear what they were saying you had done and why. Corinal (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your evidence of my engagement in an ongoing edit war is a single diff? That doesn't make much sense, generally there would need to be more than one. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my explanation? I directly linked to one to criticise your supposed confusion over my warning but mentioned your general behavior as the evidence of potential edit warring. Corinal (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * General behavior can not be evidence of edit warring. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You clearly fail to understand the point of this notice, you have been formally alerted to the edit warring policy, that is all. Corinal (talk) 02:18, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's currently February 2022; I think the section is improperly titled. Also, I don't see any edit warring behavior this month, which makes it a bit odd that you're giving a warning to Horse Eye on February 3. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The edit warring also took place during january, but perhaps it should be retitled. Corinald (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Due to this edit [] you've lost the privilege of contributing to my talk page. Please do not remove or modify other editor's comments. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts?
Hi Horse Eye's Back, what are your opinions on the recently passed America COMPETES Act of 2022? Gordon Guthrie C (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Unlisted. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You get the strangest trolls, LOL. :) BilCat (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I guess technically I should report the account for impersonating Gordon G. Chang but I think its much too funny to do that. Its a good joke too, although personally I prefer Gordon H. Chang to Gordon G. Chang both are excellent writers. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

UK Who's Who
Hi Horse Eye's Back,

I saw in a RSN discussion that you were considering nominating UK Who's Who for deprecation. I was involved in a recent AfD discussion which involved it, and would be interested in seeing such a discussion take place. Would you be interested in leading that, and/or pinging me if it takes place? Many thanks, Pilaz (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks for starting the conversation, very interested in participating. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem! I guess you saw the RfC at RSN that I started on the source. Pilaz (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did! Just added my 2c. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Friendly reminder about WP:NPA and WP:CIV
"Do not make accusations without providing evidence. Doing so is a personal attack"

"Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans."

Another instance of personal attack will be reported to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents per WP:NPA's guideline regarding recurring, chronic personal attacks. So please give WP:NPA and WP:CIV a read.

Have a good day.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone suggests that you are a duck it is inadvisable to respond by quacking loudly if you wish to disabuse people of the notion that you are a duck. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just my two cents: if somehow it is proven that you are a biased POV editor who seems to weirdly align with INTSF's POV edits, it is inadvisable to make a scene in a sockpuppet investigation related to that user. Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be very hard to prove, might I suggest even impossible. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you need simpler terms? If someone suggests that you are a duck and you literally have been caught on tape quacking, it is inadvisable to quack again and cause a scene. Have a good day.Qwertyasdf0192363 (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense, in your argument the "quack" happened months before the duck suggestion. As you said "it is inadvisable to quack again and cause a scene" and yet here you are causing a scene... I'm going to have to ask you to stop posting on my talk page if you wish to continue making threats or causing a scene. You are of course free to open up a discussion at a relevant noticeboard if you don't feel satisfied. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just as a friendly heads up, you aren't the subject of the ANI complaint, but you are mentioned by username. — Mhawk10 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Antonian Sapphire
I am quite happy to admit that it is my former account.

However, as it has not been used since July 2020 (nearly two years ago), this does not constitute a violation of WP:SOCK as I have not used the account simultaneously in a deceptive or coordinated way in line with this one, or used it to gain a parallel hand in edit wars or more. It is legitimately allowed to move on to another account providing these rules are not broken. --Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But you didn't move on, you edited from both accounts for two years. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Saying that, it is obvious that in signing me up for multiple sock puppet investigations, none of which have any grounds whatsoever, you have a vendetta against me and this is only reflective of your aggressive behaviour towards those who convene your narratives on these respective topics---Sunderland Renaissance (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't sign you up for multiple sock puppet investigations, just the one and I was right (how can you both say that there were no grounds to link you to Antonian Sapphire and that Antonian Sapphire is your undisclosed former account?). Theres more than two years of overlap between those two accounts, thats not kosher. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Revert of all my edits to the lede due to "OR"
Would you mind telling me what you believe to be "original research"?

If you are unable to do so, I would kindly ask that you self-revert. Thankyou. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * A number of your changes did not appear to be supported by the given sources giving the impression that you had inserted your own research or opinion into the text. My talk page is not the appropriate place to have this discussion by the way, I suggest that you open a discussion on the article talk page if you want to get consensus for your changes. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * They weren't "changes", they were just fleshing out what the sources say on balance. All the stuff that's on the talk page. You don't dispute those sources reliability do you? In which case, why would you object to them being mentioned?
 * "giving the impression that you had inserted your own research or opinion into the text." Have you read the sources in question? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 10:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Again this is the wrong talk page for this. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there a missing "not" in your comment at ANI?
Is there a "not" missing from they tried to introduce a lot of information into the lead which was supported by the given sources or in the article?

Feel free to remove my comment from your talk page, it is really trivial. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right abut the missing word, thank you. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

The wrath of Albert Tachibaña
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Albert Tachibaña (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

You're very unhappy today with my unwarranted accusation that I'm someone else's sockpuppet, which is a very uncivilized behavior because it may violate Wikipedia's policy on Harassment. I hope that you will withdraw the report of the so-called puppet and apologize to me, thank you! Albert Tachibaña (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Global?


Hi. I don't think your change was correct. Following the link DOES show a global lock. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure so I had asked CMD about it, looks like I missed it. Thank you! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)