User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2021/October

Images on the article about the TW province of PRC

Hi H.E.B., please note that the pictures I added to Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China were directly copied from Taiwan Province (Republic of China). I think there's nothing wrong with adding a few pictures for the reader to visualize the claimed territory in question, even though that it is not controlled by the PRC. Thanks! Félix An (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Félix An: despite the similar names those aren’t equivalent geographical or political territories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back However, all the images were taken within the region of the PRC's claim, so they would be suitable images. Félix An (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on what? Why would we use images of real places to illustrate a fictional concept? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Despite that it is only claimed, the land that the claim is speaking about actually exists in real life, and that is what the claimed area currently looks like, so the images would be suitable. Félix An (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The images may be suitable for Taiwan Province but they aren’t suitable for the completely different topic of Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. If the argument is that its suitable because it falls within the region of the PRC’s claim then there are more than a thousand image compilations which are just as suitable, so why pick this one? Either way you’re going to need to get consensus per WP:ONUS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I appreciate your interest in editing articles relating to China on Wikipedia. Would you consider yourself a sinologist or sinophile? Félix An (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Unresponsive to my message on the Adrian Zenz talking page?

Hi user:Horse Eye's Back. I had made a reply to your message and established how citing the Grayzone pieces were justified on that biography. I then made another reply stating you are violating Wikipedia's standards and WP:WL. Did you not notice these replies? Are you conceding and agreeing with me by not replying? Please help me understand. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ButterSlipper, if someone doesn’t reply to you immediately and you don’t see them active other places on wikipedia then its probably best to assume that they are eating/sleeping/fucking/sucking/blowing/cumming/singing/gaming/working/driving/operating/humping/bumping/hiking/flying or just reading a good book. As for the rest see my response on the talk page, thank you and happy trails. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Horse eye's back. Sorry for badgering you and thank you for telling me. Your reply is very humorous. It can be hard to remember other Wikipedians are humans when some users edit as if possessed for hours on end to (possibly) dent Wikipedia pages with their own political fanaticism. *cough* [1] *cough*. I'm sure those users are good-faith though and just haven't known what they're doing for almost 6 years. Hope you enjoy eating/sleeping/fucking/sucking/blowing/cumming/singing/gaming/working/driving/operating/humping/bumping/hiking/flying or just reading a good book Horse Eye's Back. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi ButterSlipper, I’m you’re both unblocked and saw the point I was trying to make! Just a reminder that you have been asked to refrain from WP:PA and "their own political fanaticism” followed by a link to an edit history would most likely be perceived as a person attack. Also note that there isn’t a “but its true” exception to WP:PA. I’m curious how you came across ZiaLater, which page in particular caught your eye? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I understand Horse Eye's Back and that's why I said *possibly* because I'm sure Zialater was not trying to do that. And I'll let you guess where I found user Zialater. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know what to guess, you don’t appear to have started editing until after they had stopped. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Secret. ButterSlipper (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That is you prerogative, as long as going forward you understand that qualifying a statement with “maybe” “possibly” etc does not take it outside the realm of WP:PA. For example the statement “X (possibly) is a kitten torturer, maybe” is still a NPA violation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I feel like you are mischaracterising my reply Horse Eye's Back. I even explicitly clarify after "I'm sure those users are good-faith though and just haven't known what they're doing" so please don't push these slanderous allegations of personal attacks. I have not made any personal attacks whatsoever. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Well see here the issue is that doesn’t really jive with your previous statement... If you’re sure that they acted in good faith then there is no “possibly” about it because you *know* they didn’t... I’m also still not convinced that you understand what a personal attack was, you were completely mistaken to begin with and after being corrected extensively on your talk page I’m still not sure you get it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok it doesn't "jive" with my last statement but I still said and believe that Zialater was a good-faith editor??? You still have no evidence to prove I'm personally attacking Zialater and the admin that had blocked me had specifically noted that it was not over personal attacks. ('the reasoning behind blocks and block templates can cover a great deal more than simple "personal attacks."') ButterSlipper (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah.. I’m pretty sure thats not what Acroterion meant by that... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Personal attacks were most assuredly one of several components that led to the block. Acroterion (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Acroterion I thought you said it was because I was treating Wikipedia like a battleground? I had already addressed how I did not personally attack at all and I thought you agreed saying in saying "I think you are splitting rhetorical hairs to justify an aggressive set of edits" and saying the issue wasn't really personal attacks but more so that I was treating Wikipedia like a battleground? Horse Eye's Back ButterSlipper (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

References

which edit was vandalism?

You said I had potentially vandalized the kuomintang page, the main edit I made is still there. Hong kuslauski (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hong kuslauski: You don’t remember repeatedly changing “sex” to "***”[2][3]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No that was a web extension which I have since removed, I didn't realize it was doing this until a couple days ago. This is a mistake. Sincerest apologies. If I'd known it was there I would have reverted it. This was not deliberate.

This web extension which I installed to prevent unpleasant pop ups and re-directs from taking me where I didn't want to go: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/web-guardian/pjfphmbojlohmlllhdonekppepdpbkme?hl=en

There's no way you could have known. This is my fault, I won't let it happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hong kuslauski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that explains that! Thanks for being open about the whole think. I wish you the best! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, God Bless! Hong kuslauski (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)