User talk:Horse Eye's Back
| This is Horse Eye's Back's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Conversing with FyzixFighter
[edit]I've been on Wikipedia a while and have dealt with a lot of zealous Latter Day Saints who genuinely come on here to turn this place into an apologetic site underhandedly. User:FyzixFighter is not one of them. He may have a clear LDS bias, but does a LOT of good work keeping articles clean. I beg you to give him the benefit of the doubt and work with him rather than chase him off, even if it takes time and effort. Epachamo (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Interesting, in general I consider you more disruptive than FyzixFighter... And I have not taken any action to "chase him off" nor have I done so with you, but the topic area would objectively be a more civil and more academic space with neither of you in it. I would prefer that your absence be voluntary rather than imposed but if someday we have to talk about topic bans for the two of you we can discuss them together. Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, so I guess we will have to learn to work together civilly. Please know the olive branch is always extended. Epachamo (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can only hope both of your editing gets better. Remember that if your practices and standards reflected community practices you guys wouldn't be getting this endless stream of pushback from the community. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon, so I guess we will have to learn to work together civilly. Please know the olive branch is always extended. Epachamo (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Look at the edit reports[1][2], you guys are two peas in a pod not a pea and a carrot. FyzixFighter is actually arguably less of a LDS SPA than you are, they have two non-LDS topics in their ten top edited... You only have one (I have ten just to be clear). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't have any in the top ten. I admit my ignorance that I don't know what SPA stands for. Single Purpose Account? Sock Puppet Account? Somewhat Physically Alluring? Epachamo (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Single purpose account is correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just curious, what viewpoint do you think I'm pushing? Epachamo (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on the specific topic but in general I find you both to push a pro-LDS point of view, for example you are both pushing that Dallin H. Oaks is an independent source on Church matters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whoa, to be clear, I am pushing that Oaks be introduced as a future Apostle and member of the First Presidency. His stake callings (particularly stake mission president) are peanuts, makes it look like we are trying too hard and will be a NPOV backfire. As far as Brodie, she is a hero to exmormons, and seeing her presented as a straight up "Mormon" historian would really irk exmormons. I try to be as neutral as possible, so I appreciate the feedback. Most of the time I'm accused of having an anti-Mormon bias so this is a bit new for me. I hope if you delve into my history, you would agree. Here are a couple contributions that I hope demonstrate a sincere desire to add complete, neutral views on the subject of Mormonism [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I could keep going for a while, but hopefully this is enough to at least convince you that I'm not a SPA. At least not with a pro-LDS bias. Epachamo (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just don't agree, in any other topic area we would note the expert's non-independence. I think your editing in general would improve if you became more familiar with how things are done on wikipedia and not just how things have been done in a specific problematic topic area. To be fair I'm also a little confused as to how we get to a situation where an editor who doesn't have any significant connection to a topic area makes thousands of edits to that topic area and almost nothing else. Trust me, doing more generalist editing makes your specialist editing better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Introducing him as a future Apostle would make clear that he is not independent, and I'm ok with that. I do not agree with that characterization that I do almost nothing else. I have made significant contributions to a broad number of pages on very diverse topics. Here is a sampling: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19]. It is true that I have made numerous edits on topics related to the Latter Day Saint movement. It is an incredibly fascinating area, with a thriving research community. I'd hope I come across as a Wikipedia version of Jan Shipps, who was respected by pretty much everyone for her dispassionate historical research. Epachamo (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shipps is also a historian of the American West writ large, her efforts to describe the donut hole so to speak do not come at the expense of expertise on the donut. In general the advice people give out is to do no more than 10% of your editing in any given topic area. I've found that to be good advice, but as always your mileage may differ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice, makes sense. Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Shipps is also a historian of the American West writ large, her efforts to describe the donut hole so to speak do not come at the expense of expertise on the donut. In general the advice people give out is to do no more than 10% of your editing in any given topic area. I've found that to be good advice, but as always your mileage may differ. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Introducing him as a future Apostle would make clear that he is not independent, and I'm ok with that. I do not agree with that characterization that I do almost nothing else. I have made significant contributions to a broad number of pages on very diverse topics. Here is a sampling: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15],[16], [17], [18], [19]. It is true that I have made numerous edits on topics related to the Latter Day Saint movement. It is an incredibly fascinating area, with a thriving research community. I'd hope I come across as a Wikipedia version of Jan Shipps, who was respected by pretty much everyone for her dispassionate historical research. Epachamo (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just don't agree, in any other topic area we would note the expert's non-independence. I think your editing in general would improve if you became more familiar with how things are done on wikipedia and not just how things have been done in a specific problematic topic area. To be fair I'm also a little confused as to how we get to a situation where an editor who doesn't have any significant connection to a topic area makes thousands of edits to that topic area and almost nothing else. Trust me, doing more generalist editing makes your specialist editing better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Whoa, to be clear, I am pushing that Oaks be introduced as a future Apostle and member of the First Presidency. His stake callings (particularly stake mission president) are peanuts, makes it look like we are trying too hard and will be a NPOV backfire. As far as Brodie, she is a hero to exmormons, and seeing her presented as a straight up "Mormon" historian would really irk exmormons. I try to be as neutral as possible, so I appreciate the feedback. Most of the time I'm accused of having an anti-Mormon bias so this is a bit new for me. I hope if you delve into my history, you would agree. Here are a couple contributions that I hope demonstrate a sincere desire to add complete, neutral views on the subject of Mormonism [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. I could keep going for a while, but hopefully this is enough to at least convince you that I'm not a SPA. At least not with a pro-LDS bias. Epachamo (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- It depends on the specific topic but in general I find you both to push a pro-LDS point of view, for example you are both pushing that Dallin H. Oaks is an independent source on Church matters. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just curious, what viewpoint do you think I'm pushing? Epachamo (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Single purpose account is correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I don't have any in the top ten. I admit my ignorance that I don't know what SPA stands for. Single Purpose Account? Sock Puppet Account? Somewhat Physically Alluring? Epachamo (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DiffieHellman.png){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BlockCipherModesofOperation.svg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ImagePreimageofaSet.png){kind=link}
August 2024
[edit]Regarding this [20]. I really couldn't care less what you think. I am trying to AGF and assume you're serious, but from your rambling and incoherent thread start to your incessant comments to everyone who disagrees with you, your inability first to distinguish one from two and then failing to grasp that two are more than one, and your misguided apparent belief others are obliged to answer to you... WP:COMPETENCE is required to edit Wikipedia and after that whole range of bizarre comments, here's what I think: you appear to be the most incompetent person I ever came across on Wikipedia. (I certainly never had to explain to someone else that two is more than one before). I already recommended you to reas,WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND and I can only repeat that recommendation. Your whole behaviour is absolutely appalling. Jeppiz (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeppiz: I understood that two are more than one... The point was that one and two are both less than several (that is why in the linked comment I ask "Where is the third?"). Is this all a misunderstanding about the definition of several? The only way that this makes sense for you to be this mad is if you think that several means two. Also again... I was not the one who hatted your comments, I am not the one you have an OWN issue with (even if we take it for granted that OWN applies to wikipedia talk pages, which is not apparent). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
JD Vance "couch thing"
[edit]Hey mate, I saw that you also supported restoring this section, so I wanted to point you toward the official vote now that they've opened one up: Talk:JD_Vance#rfc_B26536C. Cheers! Enix150 (talk) 18:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
September 2024
[edit]
Hello, I'm Ahri Boy. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Let administrators deal with bad people you encounter. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC) Retracting. Ahri Boy (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: you appear to have used a user warning for harassment? Who are you formally alledging that I have harassed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- The anonymous Hindutva activist you attacked before. It would be best not to make a rhetoric against bad people on-wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Ahri Boy: in what way was my comment an attack? Also note that the template you used is not for a personal attack, its for harassment. I also don't get how what I said would be a personal attack but calling the same editor "bad people" is not a personal attack... That actually seems worse, I was factual and descriptive while you appear to be judgemental and emotional. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- The anonymous Hindutva activist you attacked before. It would be best not to make a rhetoric against bad people on-wiki. Ahri Boy (talk) 06:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)