User talk:Horse Eye’s Back: Difference between revisions

 

Line 80: Line 80:

::::::::No-one said that you need to give me diffs (you have no obligation to be making any comments here at all), I’m asking you in good faith to show me where you see the line as laying… I didn’t use any bad language, I didn’t make any personal attacks, I generally followed BRD, so what went wrong here in your opinion? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back#top|talk]]) 03:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No-one said that you need to give me diffs (you have no obligation to be making any comments here at all), I’m asking you in good faith to show me where you see the line as laying… I didn’t use any bad language, I didn’t make any personal attacks, I generally followed BRD, so what went wrong here in your opinion? [[User:Horse Eye's Back|Horse Eye's Back]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye's Back#top|talk]]) 03:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}You just wrote {{tpq|perhaps you can provide diffs of what you want me not to do?}} That is all revealed in the diffs in the ANI discussions.

{{od}}You just wrote {{tpq|perhaps you can provide diffs of what you want me not to do?}} That is all revealed in the diffs in the ANI discussions.

Your general tone is far too often combative, accusatory, confrontational and lacking efforts to compromise and seek consensus. Over and over again, I perceive you as throwing down the gauntlet and trying to pick fights. You have had your current account for about five years, right? I remember the same behavior patterns back from when you has your old account. It’s time for a change. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Your general tone is far too often combative, accusatory, confrontational and lacking efforts to compromise and seek consensus. Over and over again, I perceive you as throwing down the gauntlet and trying to pick fights. You have had your current account for about five years, right? I remember the same behavior patterns back from when you your old account. It’s time for a change. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 03:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a new discussion on whether Aeroroutes is a reliable source because i am feeling that there are things missed out that werent mentioned in the first one, if you wanna join the discussion to mention on if its a reliable source feel free to do so, the discussion is at WP:RSN#WP:AEROROUTES Metrosfan (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Spaghetti con puntarelle, acciughe e briciole has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 30 § Spaghetti con puntarelle, acciughe e briciole until a consensus is reached. consarn _{(talck) (contirbuton s)} 12:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just let things play out instead of arguing with the responding admins. A sanction seems inevitable at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:50, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Voorts: Less arguing than education, see User talk:CoconutOctopus, those admins seem to genuinely not know what those terms mean. Curious, did you know what cluebat and plox meant? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plox yes, cluebat no. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And thats why I do what I do, I have no dog in the underlying dispute between you and poly (I like both of you) but what I won’t tolerate is people using slang to deniably say things that they would never be able to say on here in plain english. I will call them out every time. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 19:00, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no dog either, other than CTOP enforcement. If Polygnotus understood that, we wouldn’t be here, but alas. I’m more bewildered than anything. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:05, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I second your bewilderment, all seems so easily avoidable. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning to get seriously annoyed at the constant aspersions, accusations and “snide jibes” from that character… I don’t necessarily want to start an ANI, but any chance you could just remind them to back off a bit and remain civil? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think they would listen to me, especially if the context of my approach is that this ask was made. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well what’s the best way to get them to back off? It’s obvious they’re deliberately targeting me at the moment. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 16:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d just take it easy, you can keep a record of the times you feel they’ve been targeting you and eventually take it to ANI if it becomes overwhelming but I would note that claims of being targeted at ANI generally only pan out if the complainant can show that the other person has followed them into multiple topic areas, especially ones they were not previously involved in. A bunch of comments in related discussions on the same topic is unlikely to end in clear sanctions. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally spent hours writing on this page and all of it got deleted. Please do not mass delete other people’s content especially without discussing it with them. Provide specific examples so I can fix my own mistakes. Drainbamage09 (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop deleting my content. Bridge barges tailor made for a Taiwan invasion are relevant to silicon shield as it shows shield strategy does not appear to deter china. Drainbamage09 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the given source doesn’t appear to say that, that appears to be your analysis. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry you don’t understand how war works. These ships are custom built for a Taiwan invasion, which the link does say.

t Drainbamage09 (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The key is not what the links says but what it doesn’t say… When you insert your own analysis (no matter how common sense you think it is) we call that WP:Original research. Based on the quality of your edits I highly doubt you have any formal military science or political science background so I wouldn’t go around telling people they don’t understand how war works. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reinstate those tags to highway articles. I don’t see where a “consensus” was formed that maps are primary sources or original research. In fact, the RFC you linked clearly seems to say the opposite of what you want it to say: any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I don’t see any scenario where reading the annual MDOT maps is incorrectly applied, meaningless reflection, or otherwise unsuitable as a citation.

Can you show me a specific GAR or article talk page where a number of editors did agree with you and action was taken that supported your position? Especially because the last few times I asked you what a suitable source would even be, you refused to come up with one and literally said “not my problem”. So instead of creating a solution in search of a problem, you’ve somehow created a lack of solution in search of a problem. I would kindly suggest you drop the stick and stop editing road and highway articles, because it seems you are desperately trying to WP:BLUDGEON a position seemingly you and only you have and I don’t want you to end up on the wrong end of an editing restriction because of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: And please center your discussions on only one page at a time, not across several. As I pointed out, your tags are almost entirely drive-by without you explaining them; therefore, I shouldn’t have to explain when I remove them (even after I did so in the edit summary). Please lay off the highway articles, because it’s clear no one is agreeing with you, and please centralize discussions on related topics to one area. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Do you want me to limit my discussions on only one page at a time or are my tags almost entirely drive-by without me explaining them? Because both can’t be true… If you really think that MDOT maps aren’t primary you are welcome to bring that question to WP:RSN. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized discussion opened at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard #Are department of transportation maps primary sources about roads? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you appear to have linked the wrong comment, the linked comment says “WP:V doesn’t exist? “In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information corresponds to what is stated in a reliable source.”” so you would appear to be misrepresenting what happened… It was you who abandoned the discussion because you couldn’t explain your position, not me. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:26, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HEB, the reason I have blocked you is not whether you or @TenPoundHammer is right or wrong in this issue. I have no interest in maps and their roles on roads articles. What I do have an interest in is your repeated battleground mentality and incivility in your determination that you are correct. You have been warned many times about this, and we have the same issue. As such, you have lost access to edit for a month. Star Mississippi 22:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: can you explain what was uncivil about my conduct here? Which edits specifically were disruptive? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Star Mississippi: I don’t think this block was necessary. HEB had stopped editing in that topic over twelve hours before the ANI discussion was even begun, and they have made numerous edits since. I highly doubt this block will accomplish anything except antagonizing HEB. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about HEB’s edits in a specific area, but you’re welcome to participate in the thread @MjolnirPants and perhaps a consensus will emerge that my block was incorrect.

@Horse Eye’s Back your overall incivility and conduct toward other editors is disruptive. DE does not require specific edits, which you are well aware of. You’re welcome to request an unblock if you believe I was wrong. Star Mississippi 01:02, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be well aware of that? I’ve never been blocked before. I don’t understand how I can be expected to improve in the future if you won’t explain what I’ve done wrong. Much of whats in the post at ANI is misunderstandings, for example “When I pointed out the “not my problem” quip on U.S. 131, they somehow thought I was referring to a discusison from 2007 in which neither one of us was involved; a clear bad-faith whataboutism argument if I’ve ever seen one.” appears to be a link error caused by two topics in the large archive having the exact same name. I also didn’t make ~50 responses in the discussion I started, I count more like 30 which is a lot (as MjolnirPants says I had already realized that and stepped away from it) but not sure how that discrepancy gets in there without a misunderstanding (either on my part or theirs). Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve never been blocked before, you say? Not true. Your acknowledged previous account User: Horse Eye Jack was blocked in July, 2020 by Floquenbeam for a period of 2 weeks for Repeated feuding with CaradhrasAiguo. You have now used up the good will of the community. You were warned in late August there is consensus that Horse Eye’s Back has engaged in a pattern of incivility and uncollegial behaviour. Therefore, further instances of subpar conduct on their part should lead to escalating blocks. Instead of taking this warning to heart and course correcting, you continued to engage in this subpar conduct. You are now on notice that this misconduct must stop and you have one month to engage in self-reflection. You are no longer in a position to argue that you do not think that your behavior has been uncollaborative. You must now conduct yourself in a way that no reasonable editor could possibly conclude that your behavior is uncollaborative. Be the nice, kind collaborative person from now on. Take that reality seriously if you wish to keep editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: I have been told to treat that block as null because User:CaradhrasAiguo was a sock being used to bait me, either way it wouldn’t justify “which you are well aware of.” If you think that my behavior since that warning has been incivility and uncollegial perhaps you can provide diffs of what you want me not to do? For example I was told last time to bring any serious issues to a noticeboard instead of letting them fester, that is exactly what I did here… But it was exaggerated and used against me, so what am I supposed to be doing? Should I not have gone to RSN? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you should do is admit your previous block and put it in context instead of trying to conceal it. What you should do is never allow yourself to be baited. Most importantly, you must stop engaging in incivility and uncollegial behaviour as you were clearly advised to do in a formal warning. If you are unable to detect before clicking “Publish changes” when your behavior crosses the line, then take more than a month off and do self improvement work until you gain that life skill. Or find a new hobby. I do not need to give you diffs. All the diffs you could possibly need are in the current ANI discussion and the one during the summer that led to the warning. Reading the earlier ANI discussions in a humble and self reflective state of mind may also be helpful to you. Cullen328 (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No-one said that you need to give me diffs (you have no obligation to be making any comments here at all), I’m asking you in good faith to show me where you see the line as laying… I didn’t use any bad language, I didn’t make any personal attacks, I generally followed BRD, so what went wrong here in your opinion? Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You just wrote perhaps you can provide diffs of what you want me not to do? That is all revealed in the diffs in the ANI discussions.

Your general tone is far too often combative, accusatory, confrontational and lacking efforts to compromise and seek consensus. Over and over again, I perceive you as throwing down the gauntlet and trying to pick fights. You have had your current account for about five years, right? I remember the same behavior patterns back from when you had your old account. It’s time for a change. Cullen328 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]