User talk:Horse Eye's Back/Archives/2023/March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope you didn't get too frustrated

Hey @Horse Eye's Back: - I regret that whole "testimony" thing went on as long as it did today. Hope you didn't get too frustrated. Best regards always~ BetsyRMadison (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back may I ask what this is in regards to? 122.150.92.52 (talk) 08:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Just checking in again. I'd really like to know what this is about. 122.150.92.52 (talk) 10:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:MrSchimpf. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mvcg66b3r: you're going to have to be specific, what about the edits was disruptive? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You were hounding @MrSchimpf: on his talk page. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
How so? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You were following him from page to page criticizing his edits when they were made in good faith. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
They may have been made in good faith but that doesn't mean they weren't disruptive. How is making unsourced additions (including to BLP where it is strictly prohibited) not disruptive? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You're removing sources and entire sections of articles without comment or any talk page acknowledgement. That's unacceptable even with topics not covered by BLP, and you are required to notify constant contributors/creators of those pages of what is going on. You've deleted so much content today here without a word on talk or user talk pages. It needs to stop. And Mvcg is allowed to go back and highlight what they intended; they're refactoring themselves. That's 100% allowed. Nate • (chatter) 20:58, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Lol, do you really believe the things you're saying? There is no notification requirement what are you talking about? You are literally supposed to remove sources and entire sections of articles without comment or any talk page acknowledgement its not only acceptable for BLP is is *required* "Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
A subject area's sourcing may be limited because of the few sources that we can use (of which Christian music is one). You're the only one with this issue, and whatever the 'must be removed ASAP' language is, notification is appreciated, especially when you cut half an article's content without a bit of notice. The source wasn't negative, nor were they being slandered; the subject was in the interview. It's a good source. You don't remove a proper source, period. And stop being so combative. Nate • (chatter) 21:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Appreciated =/= are required . You have a source for that right? Or did you make it up and pretend like it was a policy? I'm not being combative, I'm being very firm as required by policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I also do not appreciate the mocking on your reversion. You're removing sources. You cannot do that without stating exactly why. It's being restored. Nate • (chatter) 21:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I stated why... The source is unreliable, it should never have been used in the first place. Removing unreliable sources always improves the encyclopedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The source details her career; it's 100% fine. She didn't write it. It's neutral, and I have replaced it with an archived link. Nate • (chatter) 21:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The source is an extremist publication which does not meet our WP:RS requirements ... Did you miss that part? We can only use high quality reliable sources for BLP. We are both required to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources." which is what I am doing, why do you feel free to disregard wikipedia policy? From your talk page this isn't an isolated issue, people bring this up weekly (along with your habit of marking major edits as minor). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Extremist to whom? We don't have it on the blacklist. Please state exactly what you find wrong with a simple interview of a Christian artist in a Christian magazine that you allege is extremist. And yes, I have problems with extremist IPs and editors trying to kill the NPOV of a page, which is why my edits are discussed on a talk page. And I mark edits as minor when they are both small and uncontroversial, or minor typos I'm fixing because I reserve the right to fix my spelling. Nate • (chatter) 21:12, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Like COVID and January 6 conspiracies. If thats how you mark edits as minor what happened here [1]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Or all of these [2][3][4][5][6][7]. Thats just in the last hundred edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The article linked predated 2020 and was hardly controversial. We have an article about the magazine. Sure, we're not going to use it for those topic areas, but it's pretty safe for a hum-drum Christian artist bio. Nate • (chatter) 21:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
We can't use anything other than an unambiguous reliable source for BLP, nothing there suggests that this is a high quality WP:RS. The opposite in fact, they appear to have called for the death of Pete Buttigieg. IDK what you're used to but thats extreme to most people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I will bring this up on WP:RSN for final clarficiation; all I can say is at the time they weren't saying that, so I don't feel the source as-is without their post-2020 issues is controversial. I'm finished now and won't respond further. Nate • (chatter) 21:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. It is possible that coverage from before a certain date or time period is OK but that would have to be substantiated by another source, it couldn't just be assumed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
FFS, I'm removing vandalism and editing in events noted by other articles. Stop stalking my edits and focus on what exactly the problem you have on the NCM page with one interview. Nate • (chatter) 21:24, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Removing vandalism isn't minor. Nor is editing in events noted by other articles (nor should you be doing that without adding the source from the other article). I'm not stalking your edits, if you come across someone being disruptive it is 100% ok to see how wide the disruption is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm hardly being disruptive, and I don't know why rollback marked vandalism reversion as a minor edit, which was 100% unintentional (and the ShopHQ content was reverting an IP who claimed the channels are still on the air, when they aren't). You need to explain your large-scale content removal beyond a WP drop; use talk pages and discuss. I'm done here because there are more important things to worry about, and I'll defend my editing style as I see fit. Nate • (chatter) 21:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't "need" to do that, is this another made up policy? I'm always happy to join a talk page discussion to include material which I have removed from a BLP, but there is generally no need to start that discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:ROLLBACK, marking a rollback as a minor edit is intended behavior, but it was my 100% intention to revert vandalism. So if you want to get mad about rollback marking edits as minor, I guess thats for an RfC, not me. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
And what about the "editing in events noted by other articles" ? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:38, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Please do not edit talk page comments after they have been responded to as you did here[8], thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Edits on Desert Tech Page

As your COI inquiry got me checking, just a reminder to check the sources of the restored sections of the Desert Tech page (before you restore something) for all claims in the line it is attached to.

Many of the text is weirdly/uncharacteristically written to be about the CEO rather than the company (For the CEO of Sig Sauer that was arrested for arms smuggling to terrorists 5 years ago, IWI's CEO charged with bribery over the last few years are not contained in the business pages, or that the founder of Glock (and his second Haider, were aligned with Nazi Germany and political activists and some of the largest donors in Austria's freedom party which was formed by Hitler Nazi's). There was a lot of Brigading of the pages last year (even into the MDRx page), presumably by individuals with COI. The text are written with a nugget of truth and a speculation asserted as fact.

For example there is no citation that says the the religion financed or owns Desert tech (needs at minimum a citation needed in the multiple places it is referenced). There is no citation on what a 'numbered man' is or how many there are, (so the element that it controls the religion is speculation, could be a membership number of related or could be awarded by the size of donations such as in other religions). Another example is Citation 2 is attributed to indicate that the CEO is the nephew of someone, when you click on the citation there is no reference at all to that element in the reference.

Realistically the CEO details should probably be moved out of the Desert Tech manufacturer page and into a page dedicated to the CEO. In addition the speculation comments are probably best to leave in the talk pages.

-FrozenIceman01

We do actually have a source which says that and it is currently linked: "The Order has been deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an advocacy group that monitors extremist activity, because of its teachings that disparage Black people and the LGBTQ community. There are as many as 7,500 members, and children are typically raised and educated within the religious sect. Followers often take part in an internal banking system that can land them in debt beginning in childhood. The group acknowledges on its website that some members "have chosen to enter into lifelong relationships that include multiple women." The Order says that minors who take on debt are required to have adult cosigners, and denies being a hate group, saying, "We believe regardless of their race or heritage, people have a right to take pride in their own heritage while maintaining a relationship of mutual respect for those who may be of a different race or culture." The Order's most privileged members, including Young, belong to a small group called "Numbered Men." Young appears in an official Order portrait as a Numbered Man, and he identifies himself by his name and number in a video obtained by CBS News in which Young delivers a sermon. In the 6-minute video, Young paints a dark picture of life outside The Order's sheltered society. "I'm Nicholas Young, Number 72," he begins, later adding: "If I was to, you know, meditate and pray about protecting The Order from the evil forces, (feminists) would be the greatest forces that I would want to fight against, because they would infiltrate our young children and destroy The Order from the inside.""[9] also see[10]. Its allowed to be speculative as long as that speculation is made by the source and not us. Thank you for pointing out that Sig Sauer, IWI, and Glock's pages don't follow WP:NPOV. Obviously the solution is to bing those pages up to standard not to let this one slip. Based on the coverage in reliable sources their links to a polygamous sect is by far the most notable thing about this company and that has to be reflected in our coverage for it to be neutral. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Here are the two areas that I think are WP:NOR and WP:V issues: From the Desert Tech page "The company -is financed and owned-" and "he company -is financed and owned- by members of the Kingston family" is synthesis from this above "The Order says that minors who take on debt are required to have adult cosigners." None of the citations say who owns Desert Tech and nothing I came across indicate who financed Desert Tech. Being an officer of a company does not necessarily mean they own it.
And here is the other WP:NOR and WP:V issue "Its CEO, Nick Young is a member of the Numbered Men -who control the religious group-" the source is this from above. "Young appears in an official Order portrait as a Numbered Man, and he identifies himself by his name and number in a video obtained by CBS News in which Young delivers a sermon" We don't know what numbered man means nor level of influence in the organization to affect decisions.
What I am saying is that the last half of the sentences are analysis/synthesis and possibly COI and should be identified as such or moved to talk.
As far as the company and its links to the Polygamous sect, it is important that it is mentioned in the article. I am not arguing for removal of the references just ensure they are supported without WP:NOR. I would argue that a page on a firearm manufacturer's most important part is the products they produce and who uses them, especially as this manufacturer is the only US company that produces Bullpups, especially with many of them being standard issued firearms to the Ukrainian Government in the current war (However due to the brigading specifically of that page, I'll let someone else deal with updating it).
-FrozenIceman01
How can you have synthesis from only one source? That doesn't make any sense. Whatever reliable sources cover the most is the most important part. Thats how NPOV works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Exactly, It doesn't make sense that is what I am pointing out. Especially as the source referenced in the line citation (number 2) is this: "https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-jr-desert-tech-riles-promotion-nicholas-young-the-order-polygamous-group-utah/" and the original Southern Poverty law citation isn't in the reference chart. Here is the original source by the way for the news article that it cites https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2017/blood-cult (Probably should be cited in there somewhere).
If all of the information is from one article its just found in different parts of the article thats summary not synthesis. We don't currently use the Southern Poverty Law Center as a source for the article (consensus is that its not a high quality source). "which is owned by a prominent member of a polygamous sect." doesn't get much more clear. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Ah that explains why SPLC isn't referenced, the news article is an intermediary (It takes quotes directly from the SPLC article report). Either way "Financed" isn't in the article nor is any details as to what a numbered man is or that they "control" the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrozenIceman01 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
How do you own something without putting money up? The article does seem to detail what a numbered man is and that they are at the top of this extremist religious sect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Owning and financing are different terms. Financed means that company ownership (or part of it) is with someone else as some form of shareholder with repayment terms. For this article "owning" is just fine. Article doesn't say numbered men are at the top. Article says numbered men are privileged in the organization and that two other numbered men are currently charged for crimes.
Owner and shareholder are the same thing. If you would prefer to adjust to privileged and drop financed thats fine, it doesn't appear to change what is being said in any material way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Your call, I'm not touching that page with a ten foot pole. Someone is going to fight over the exact content. I just wanted to inform you of the various tricks I was seeing to try and put a bias spin on it.
Done, I have absolutely no problem with being conservative when it comes to BLP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Also I've expanded the info about Sig, you weren't exactly right about what happened but it was significant and does need to be on the page per NPOV. Will get to IWI and Glock in good time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good and nice work!
Now that we've settled all that one sidebar point! I believe that both Kel-tec and Barrett would challenge the claim that "this manufacturer is the only US company that produces Bullpups" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, you are right, I forgot that Kel-tec was in the US (yep that was a stupid mistake, CEO is Swedish). Kel-tec also has a checkered history as well. George Kellgren, both the Kel-Tec page and the CEO dedicated page have been sanitized namely due to the legal/criminal issues related to the Tec-9 and their political support of right wing individuals such as George Zimmerman. Unfortunately, Barret is no longer a US Company, it was bought by Australia's NIOA in January. Good Point.
Just good business... I don't like it and I do everything I can to work against it but most companies will at least try to edit their wikipedia page to be more favorable and most of them will be at least somewhat successful. Its economically rational as the benefits seem to outweigh the risks and it costs practically nothing (a few hours of some employee's time). Sometimes its less disruptive because they're just adding stuff but as you've noticed sometimes they go the whitewashing/sanitizing route. Often it nobody's fault and the info just isn't on the page because most people who edit firearms pages focus on the pages for the firearms and not the companies that make them, thats kind of an institutional bias... You will often find that the pages for individual guns are much longer and better done than the page for the manufacturer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Haha but also seriously

While I'm a tad bummed V caught another block I wanted to note that the idea you mention in this comment would actually be extremely handy. If someone does make one (humorous or otherwise), please tag me—it would be at least funny to link to when the occasion called for it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Skater page, yet again

@Horse eye's back: ["|If you know of other poorly sourced BLP content point it out to me and I will remove it immediate and without waiting for discussion."]

Here you go!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Zhou#Records_and_achievements

By the way, the Yuna Kim article [pointed out to you] also had a lot of unsourced content, which you didn't discover somehow, yet I and the editors who've worked on it since did. Funnily, it turns out, pasting in [citation needed] isn't such a terrible thing to do. Or, of course, you can keep deleting huge chunks of info on only certain athletes' pages and justify it through BLP policy, while ignoring the others.

The figure skating project is in agreement that there aren't many sources out there due to the niche nature of the project, which you can ask @Figureskatingfan. I've also since had Xinhua and China Daily cleared from wikiproject China [[11]]. I'm just letting you know, because I very much will be pasting references from these places in.

You need to cool down with this, since you clearly don't understand the rules of the FS wikiproject and why the skating bios are the way they are, because if you actually look at pages outside of the Chinese skaters ones, you'll notice many "unsourced" things for good reason. If you care so much, go and delete, but don't be shocked if people revert them. Editor120918756 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool down? Huh? That linked discussion is from October 2022. Are you mad at our WP:BLP policy? Its never going to be ok to have unsourced info about living people, whether they fall within the purview of the FS wikiproject or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Psst

I think you mean "we are not our past" not "out pass". I'd fix it for you but I just put a target on my back and no doubt somebody would call it evidence against me Elinruby (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Haha yes you are correct. I'm sorry that happens to you, rest assured I would have defended you in that circumstance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Undoing edits

You recently undid one of my edits in Colonialism, claiming that those areas are colonies.

None of these are actual colonies, as most of them were owned by china when the people there allowed the chinese government at that time to own their territory. For example, the Indigenous taiwanese allowed Zheng Chenggong to liberate them from the dutch, while xinjiang, known as the western regions in the han dynasty mostly surrendered to the han. Please stop undoing these edits. Thehistorianisaac (talk). 05:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

By indigenous Taiwanese do you mean Chinese colonists? Koxinga only gains control of part of Taiwan, they never manage to subdue the majority of the indigenous Taiwanese. The sources don't agree with you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
No, it literally says this: "that Dutch strangers, who came from far regions, should give way to the masters of the island." The Taiwanese Aboriginal tribes who were previously allied with the Dutch against the Chinese during the Guo Huaiyi Rebellion in 1652 turned against the Dutch during the Siege of Fort Zeelandia and defected to Koxinga's Chinese forces" in the koxinga article Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Nothing about "liberation" in there. There were Mexican tribes who allied with the Spanish and Spain arguably "liberated" many from Aztec control, does this mean that Mexico was not a colony of Spain? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
No mexico was a colony of spain Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
And Taiwan was a colony of China, or part of it was. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
But the indigenous taiwanese were friends with the ming, which makes taiwan NOT a colony. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Or at least morally not a colony. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
There are no Ming here, only a Ming pretender. You are aware that the Kingdom of Tungning only controlled around 10% of Taiwan and engaged in warfare against indigenous groups for its entire history? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
yes; fine taiwan is a colony but the others are not. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
What about the colonies in the west like Xinjiang? We certainly have a lot of scholars who write about Qing colonialism in the west. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
It previously belonged to china in the han dynasty as a protectorate. By your standards of a colony, technically the entire china is a colony. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
British colonialism made heavy use of protectorates, are you saying that wasn't colonialism? Yes most of modern China is colonial possessions, its like any other settler colonial state. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks; I am less ashamed by that article because I knew the definition of colonialism. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
We live in a world that is a product of the actions of those who came before us, we are not the colonists and we are not those that they oppressed. Much of the world we love was established by colonial genocides (Dzungar genocide, California genocide, etc) and thats always going to be a tricky thing to grapple with. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We are not our past - some random related musings

Inability to change and grow is a hallmark of a problematic editor. I wrote a mini-essay series starting from that (they may be a bit old. so note many represent my thoughts as of ~10 years ago).

One of my greatest life lessons on Wikipedia came a few years after I joined, in late 2000s I think, and it involved me realizing a shocking fact: that I am biased. And that reaching NPOV in an article requires the ability to compromise.

Random trivia: my first contributions to Wikipedia were pure WP:FANCRUFT. These days, a major aspect of my editing is cleaning up such stuff at AfDs...

Also, the sources people - including myself - used years ago were often... terrible. I am still learning how to find reliable sources. I mean, in the very early days, it was just Google and the occasional book from a library. But mostly, Google :> Since then, Google Scholar, Google Books, LibGenesis, Internet Archive, Wikipedia Library, understanding stuff like predatory publishing, WP:RSP or WP:BIASED... the journey continues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Vilage pump RFC

Could I recommend WP:COAL? --Licks-rocks (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You are almost certainly right... but damnit I like bouncing the ball almost as much as you like licking rocks! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

My User page

Do not ever edit my User page again. I namechecked you because you and several other users made bad faith accusations towards me and wilfully and blatantly did everything you possibly could to Wikipedia:LAWYER against me because I spent years of my life standing up against systemic bias on the main Year pages, of which they were rife and deep-rooted. You should be ashamed of yourself for the way you persecuted me and called for a ban against me in bad faith and in spite of everything I said and in spite of myself politely answering all of the inquiries on an ANI that should never have been called. Your persecution towards me directly impacted my mental health in a major way, which is why I took my leave of absence from Wikipedia. The entire issue is by and large moot now because the Deaths section of the main Yearly pages, which had been by some distance the most problematic and contentious section in terms of systemic bias, is now removed entirely - and honestly for the best given what happens here if you try and address systemic Americentric bias. I can’t imagine any realistic circumstance where you edit my User page again, but I say again do not edit my User page. TheScrubby (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." WP:NPA (emphasis added) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
You literally persecuted me and called for my ban even when I offered to collaborate with the wider community on a new guideline. You tried, all but successfully, to run me away from Wikipedia. So take what you just said and stick it up where the sun doesn’t shine. Your total lack of empathy and understanding for your fellow man speaks volumes. Just stay off my damn User page. TheScrubby (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Further personal attacks on your user page will be removed, end of story. If you persist you are likely to find that your persecution complex is a self fulfilling prophecy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
So now you’re threatening me? Literally everything I had written on my User page was correct, and various other users (including on the ANI) described it as a form of persecution. You, Cullen and Rotary Engine WP:LAWYERED against me and endorsed bans against me even when I tried to be as cooperative as possible. You completely ignored my original comment on this Talk page after you made clear you wanted me banned, even after I cooperated with you. So don’t give me any of that goddamn crap about “personal attacks” when you willfully and intentionally misrepresented my words and actions as being in bad faith and therefore deserving of a ban, and for completely ignoring my comment asking what I have ever done to you to warrant such vile treatment. I had every right to post that statement upon my retirement from Wikipedia, and why I called it quits and who pushed me to breaking point and beyond. Vengeful, spiteful users who get a kick out of prosecuting and giving out the death sentence for their own sick pleasure. Go ahead, do your absolute worst - it’s users like you who have damaged my mental health and tried to run me off this site and get me banned. You still want to find any excuse whatsoever to ban me, don’t you? Because you want to get rid of me and want me to leave this site completely, because you clearly have something personal against me. You must get some sort of pleasure from this. You make me sick. I literally could not care less at this point if I can no longer edit here. DO NOT EVER GET ON MY USER PROFILE AND DO NOT EVER MAKE ANY EDITS ON MY PROFILE AGAIN, AND STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM ME ON THIS SITE. TheScrubby (talk) 07:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not threatening you, just telling you that at this point the only one working to get you banned/blocked is you and you're doing an excellent job. I don't know you from Adam, we had a single interaction on a noticeboard which you didn't like the outcome of... Because you didn't like the outcome of it you launched a campaign of harassment against those you felt had wronged you, including me. As you have discovered you have no right to use your user page as an attack page because the WP:NPA applies there as well. If you do that again it will probably be removed, I can't promise that it won't be me who removes it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back/Archives/2023/March&oldid=1154245324"