User talk:Horse Eye Jack

Archives (Index)

2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/November 2020/December 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/October 2023/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

December 2019

Which contributions are you specifically referring to as "did not appear constructive" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.166.131.15 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I was refering to the only edit you had ever made on that account, an edit you have since made again and been reverted again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Civil Aeronautics Administration (Taiwan), you may be blocked from editing. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh ok so you were trying to revert me, the edit summary "(tags)" when combined with you changing the language tags confused me. In the future please try to make your edit summaries more factual if they are in any way controversial, especially when you revert. I fail to see how the information is incorrect, could you perhaps elaborate CaradhrasAiguo? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

It can be clearly seen that Horse Eye is just a bully. He thinks he is a law onto himself. In reality he is really Horse Ass Jack. 86.186.93.72 (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ammar Campa-Najjar has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ammar Campa-Najjar. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jack

Thank you for your message regarding why my amends to the Grosvenor Group pager were not accepted. Apologies for not going about it the right way, I thought it was within the rules to make factual amends. I have sent a previous message on Talk which lists the inaccuracies and points to the sources where you can find the most up to date information - this is all on the Grosvenor website and the latest copy of the Annual Review. Would you be able to review and update?

Many thanks Natasha — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatashaGrosvenorGroup (talk • contribs) 10:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Horse_Eye_Jack reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: ). Thank you. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Jeff5102 (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Can you be more specific? I’ve made a lot of comments on that page and none appear to me to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo and Horse Eye Jack: Do not bully bold editors. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Holding disruptive, unconstructive editors (who know how to WP:GAME) such as HEJ accountable is hardly bullying bold editors. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:Answer the gosh darn question, which edit are you warning me over? You’ve been well informed at this point that you are required to provide an explanation of your warning (see Darthkayak’s explanation to you below). You cant just keep participating on my talk page while ignoring your basic obligation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, WP:ASPERSIONS cites {{Information page}}, which as of this writing explicitly states It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and customs. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Perhaps, before making another run at your nauseating wikilawyering (as also described by Zanhe and Jeff5102), you would take care to read the header at the top of the page you are citing using as a trump card of sorts? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 18:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:What. Edit(s). Did. You. Warn. Me. Over. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: That's exactly why I'm challenging you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

You are bullying others by your actions. I would suggest friendly interaction where it is possible. You're just turning away people that are trying to participate. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No, @Geographyinitiative:, HEJ is here to remove sources he dislikes (spuriously citing BLP where the article isn't remotely biographical). It does not help he gives a false veneer of civility while being condescending in editing disputes where he barely escapes edit warring sanctions due to his complete mastery of WP:GAME tactics. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 22:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: The fact that you are thinking of this editor as an extremist is part of the problem biasing you against the person. It doesn't matter if the editor is extremist. Extremists are allowed to edit Wikipedia. The only question is does the editor intend to create a useful encyclopaedia. I see that effort for sure and I urge tolerance. You call the person extremist, but in the face of an authority seeking to stamp out your perspective, you might get a little extreme. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Geez I wish I was as good as CaradhrasAiguo says... A “legendary wikilawyer” and now apparently I have "complete mastery of WP:GAME tactics.” If you didnt mean those as personal attacks it would almost be flattering. You aren’t going to tell me which edit your NPA warning is over are you? You also need to watch what language you use, I have never advanced an extremist opinion once on wikipedia and if you think I have then present difs to support your claim. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: I do not understand why you still refuse to provide diffs showing HEJ making the personal attacks you allege, and since you refuse to accept Arbcom statements as sufficient to show that you have to back up such claims with evidence, I hope you will instead accept Wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks. To quote from it, personal attacks include Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.. You have not yet provided diffs showing the personal attacks HEJ has made, so I repeat my earlier request; please provide them. Thank you. Darthkayak (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: Because your statements both here and at the AN/I thread are in direct contravention of policy, or why else would veteran editors such as Zanhe, Jeff5102 hold a view dissenting with yours? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Asking you to bring forth evidence for your accusation is a contravention of policy? Please explain which of my statements have violated policies and how, and I will apologize and retract them. As for why Zanhe and Jeff5102 hold different views, sometimes reasonable people disagree about things. I can think someone is wrong about a thing, and still believe that they have genuine reasons for thinking it that are worth consideration - I firmly believe that that's the point of discussion. Lastly, I still don't understand why you wont provide the diffs; I am not your opponent, and if you have them, it would be simple to share them so that we can be on the same page. Darthkayak (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Darthkayak: I will only provide a diff if you can link your email to your account. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering in his entire wikipedia career CaradhrasAiguo has created 19 main space pages, none is above a stub [1]. I have created 89 main space pages: 2 Bs, 19 Cs, 40 Starts, and 10 Stubs [2]. This is why its weird and hard to take seriously when they say I’m not here to build an encyclopedia as they have done at least a half dozen times without citing any evidence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You know very well the vast majority of my edits are semi-automated / maintenance, and that all other users besides Darthkayak at the latest AN/I thread have accused you of being wholly unconstructive. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

disruptive edit notice

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of modern armament manufacturers, you may be blocked from editing. 112.45.194.206 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Well thats super weird! Its signed by 112.45.194.206 but was made by 112.45.194.161[3]. 112.45.194.206 did post on my page, but back in January. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

No it is not, this is simply an instance of rotating IPs (which you should know for editing as long as you have), but then again, I think you are "playing dumb" to give a deceptively cuddly appearance. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaradhrasAiguo! Now that you’re back on my talk page can you answer the direct question posed above? You never specified what comment you were warning me over even though you are required to give justification for warnings. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, no justification is required for warnings apart from posts notifying of AN/I or AN/EW threads. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If clarification is requested it must be given, otherwise it would appear to be an improper use of a warning template. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

So you literally made that up, then. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Mmmmmm nope, but it seems you did make up your accusation of a WP:NPA violation. Which you have ironically followed with a whole series of NPA violations yourself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You have been unable to provide a single quote from a policy or template usage documentation to back your claim. For the record, Template:uw-npa4 makes no mention of requirements. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You’re on a tangent, whats the personal attack? A dif will suffice. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You were the one who claimed a requirement for justification to begin with. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You put a warning on my talk page yet you won’t tell me which edit you warned me over? You’re the only one who can explain it as you placed it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo: Justification is required if it is unclear what instance is being referred to. Accusing someone of a serious violation (and NPAvios are serious), and then refusing to provide evidence when asked is considered casting aspersions. To quote Arbcom's ruling on the subject: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. You have been asked to provide evidence in the form of diffs; please do so. Darthkayak (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MoS far-right advocacy

I didn't abandon the "discussion" any more than you or Akira CA did. We all derailed it because you started spouting off your characteristic absolutism (and ignorance), refuted by multiple WP:RS. And I stand by my typification of you as a WP:NOTHERE vandal. As evidenced by the last AN/I thread opened against you, multiple editors (including those focused on non-Sinosphere topics) believe you are not editing constructively. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The only uninvolved editor to participate in the ANI took my side entirely, no admin thought it merited action. Your accusations are in violation of WP:NPA and I’m asking you to retract them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the spirit of moving the goalposts (as you have done just now), everyone who has disagreed with you at that AN/I thread has more than twice your edit count and has been editing on the site for 5+ years. You even managed the herculean feat of riling the normally agreeable Zanhe, himself a well-respected prolific DYK / content creator.

No admin not paying attention to the thread (due to other threads) does not equate to not thinking it merited action. Another ludicrous fallacy. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It was up at ANI for more than a week... Please don’t characterize my statement as a "ludicrous fallacy” when I do nothing of the sort to you. You might remember that the first time you ever commented on this page it was to chime in uninvited on a dispute between myself and Zanhe. Once again I am asking you to retract your statement which violated WP:NPA or I will be forced to file a complaint. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

When your thread was up at AN/I there was at least one indefinite block / (topic) ban discussion going on. And, at the time I first chimed in here, your goodwill with Zanhe had not evaporated as it has now; the only irony here is your mentioning of a timeline, as a poor attempt at non-defense, has only served as a reminder of your epic disruption.

The only way to retract an edit summary is to WP:REVDEL it, which I doubt an admin would be willing to expend the time to do that. You are welcome to request a REVDEL. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t want you to revert it I want you to say it isn't true, right here... right now. This is your last chance. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I will say you are not a vandal. I will leave it to others to decide whether you have violated the WP:NOTHERE tenets of Dishonest and gaming behaviors, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:NORESVAND "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks.” and also the supplement Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal", you are mistaken about the appropriateness of using that word. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China Air Force

Please don't blindly revert just because someone has reverted you - in particular reverting someone updating the 2019 edition of the Flight International directory to the 2020 edition does not help to improve the article, no matter what you think about the rest of the changes. In addition be more careful of your edit summaries - referring to someone as "darling" is likely to cause offense. Please don't do that.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The extent of the edits made picking the good from the bad within them too tedious to reasonably consider, they needed to be discussed on the talk page and the user making the edits adamantly refuses to do so. They even violated 3RR over it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you review edit [4] you will find that the armaments and the air defense sections were near identically duplicated (as in two identically titled sections with slightly different content)... Reverting such a damaging edit is very appropriate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are making edits which some deem controversial, but I think I would agree with you in some cases. Keep making the edits you think are productive and let me know if I can help you. Remember to focus on producing the encyclopaedia and not let the controversies overwhelm your time here. Have fun.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make factual corrections to company page

Hi Horse Eye Jack

I previously made factual corrections to the Grosvenor Group page which you didn't accept because I work for the company. I have previously submitted the suggested changes and given sources but no one made them. Please could you advise how I should go about ensuring the page is up to date? You can visit the Grosvenor Group website with link to the latest Annual Review which has the latest information about key members of staff and financial information, which is currently out of date.

Thank you Natasha

NatashaGrosvenorGroup (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF

I agree with Nigel that you should not revert appropriate edits. That is unacceptable. You may find it tedious - but that is no excuse. If it is too tedious for you, move on to edit another article, where you are not violating wp rules by reverting appropriate edits. This is pretty basic-it is a violation of wp rules to revert appropriate edits. --2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Please provide both diffs of the claimed violations as well as specifically state which policy or guidelines you believe I am in violation of. I know you’re new to wikipedia but WP:casting aspersions is taken very seriously. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I am concerned about your revert of material, discussed at Talk:Ammar Campa-Najjar under the section titled "Additions."

Please note WP:NOTHERE's discussion of "Dishonest and gaming behaviors". I remain confused as to how you can possibly think it is ok to delete material that you describe yourself as "good." And how you can delete other material that is well-supported and clearly relevant for no reason whatsoever.

If you insist on deleting the material again, let's see if we can have some admins review what you have been doing and weigh in on that. Thanks. Have a nice day.

--2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

You’re confusing me, your edits are live now so its not possible for me to self revert even if I wanted to. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the nonsensical parts about self reverting. Please address the concerns raised above and cite any policy or guideline you believe supports your argument that "it is a violation of wp rules to revert appropriate edits” which WP:NOTHERE does not do, nor does WP:NOTHERE apply to this situation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• You just refactored my edits. That is not appropriate. See WP:TPO. Please put them back where I had place them. And please explain why it is proper for you to delete edits that you yourself find to be "good" edits. And explain why your behavior is acceptable. And how it is not an example of you trying to game the system. 2604:2000:E010:1100:E1BA:9AD8:54D4:B8BF (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Its my talk page, I’m allowed to move things around so that they are grouped in an orderly fashion by event. Your comments clearly belong in the same section. If good and bad edits are mixed together as one than a reversion often sweeps away the good with the bad, this is regrettable but not against any rule or guideline. Consensus must be gained for any contentious edit and per WP:BRD I followed standard procedure (I even refrained from reverting your revert even though per WP:BLP I would have been well within the bounds to do so). Again per WP:VNOTSUFF the onus to to gain consensus for those changes is on you and you are the one who needs to explain what they meant by "it is a violation of wp rules to revert appropriate edits” because thats not supported by policy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Also WP:TPO? Seriously? Come on, this is a user talk page so Wikipedia:User pages applies. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• No. As indicated, with a link, you are not allowed to refactor other editors' comments on your talk page as you did. The guideline I linked to states: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." 2604:2000:E010:1100:88B1:D582:4EC7:9A0F (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The meaning is identical, there has been no change. As I made clear in my edit summary the move was simple housekeeping. If you would like me to remove all your past and future posts from my page immediately I can do so, otherwise please respect my housekeeping. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The meaning is not identical. That is ludicrous. The first sentence of my comment refers to a prior comment. You moved my comment -- so that the prior comment is no longer an immediately prior comment in the same string.2604:2000:E010:1100:88B1:D582:4EC7:9A0F (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

IP, either provide a single iota of either policy or guideline to support your position vis-a-vis reversion or go home, simple as that. This is my talk page and I’m not going to allow you to WP:bludgeon your way through. You need to pick a venue, you’re saying nearly identical things here and at Talk:Ammar Campa-Najjar. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Warning

• At the page Talk:Ammar Campa-Najjar, you just wrote "please provide any wikipedia policy or guideline which back up the assertion you made on my talk page and appear to be continuing to make that "it is a violation of wp rules to revert appropriate edits." That is astonishing. At the very least, it suggests that you are not at the project to be a collegial editor. Editing under the thinking that is not a violation of wikipedia policy to revert appropriate edits is the sort of approach that will get you blocked. We like to warn people before blocking them. Consider this a warning for that behavior. 2604:2000:E010:1100:4821:A007:1268:1328 (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The WP:BRD cycle wouldn’t be able to function at all if it was against the rules to challenge any addition that its author thought was good. You do actually need to cite policy or guidelines to support your position, you have yet to do so. Also whether or not your edit was "appropriate" is mostly irrelevant, what is relevant is that you do not have consensus for inclusion nor do you appear to be trying to gain consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

In fact if you check the page the nascent consensus appears to be against you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Reading the consensus of comments on this talk page, it would appear that the community that has spoken to the issue here notes a problem with your editing. I've formalized a warning. It is up to you to listen to the consensus here, or ignore it, but ignoring it invites future admin and community action. Best of luck. 2604:2000:E010:1100:88B1:D582:4EC7:9A0F (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thats not a warning, either place a warning template and provide diffs or go home. Threatening people with vague punishments over vague offenses isn't cool. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Truly no implication here, I am just making sure anyone who has edited Race and intelligence in the past two weeks has been properly alerted. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

MOS discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk page

You left a message on my talk page, the context of which I cannot discern. If you have a concern about an edit, please be specific so I can address your concern, although I always leave an edit summary which usually more than explains my edits. I’m always happy and able to support my edits, and I encourage open and honest discussions. Happy editing and God bless. MarydaleEd (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Please reply on your talk page, thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding of NPOV policy

Regarding your recent purge of content here and your personal attack that I don't understand the NPOV policy, I advise you to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete

Especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted.

and Psychological projection,

Psychological projection is a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others. For example, a bully may project their own feelings of vulnerability onto the target.

-- Akira😼CA 00:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@Akira CA:

A: saying you don’t understand WP:NPOV is not a WP:PA, you're demonstrating it right here right now.

B: It wasn’t text... It was an image and the point was that it didn't comply with the MOS, the NPOV concern is secondary and my edit summary never even mentions NPOV.

C: Yikes man, going armchair psychiatrist is completely uncalled for, don’t ever post something that offensive to my talk page again or I will take it to a noticeboard.  Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

A: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. and you've provided zero evidence on why I don't understand the NPOV policy, with neither diffs nor quoting. This is a clear indication of PA.

B: The underlying principle of the MoS is NPOV concerns per Ythlev and RfC so yes, NPOV is still the primary concern.

C: Also I'm not giving any medical advice so please don't accuse me for going armchair psychiatrist, which is a serious accusation and requires serious evidence. I'm merely providing "FYI" so please assume good faith and stop your repeated WP:PA. -- Akira😼CA 02:40, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Failing to understand NPOV is not misbehavior... It describes every single editor at some point in their editing careers. As for the armchair psychiatry the relevant diff is [5], but again while it may violate WP:CIVIL it is not in and of itself misbehavior. I’m glad you’ve learned that serious accusations require serious evidence, but you learned that particular bit of Wikipedia knowledge from swarm[6] and myself just recently. I noticed you didn’t acknowledge the point that you mistook an image for text. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Answer the gosh darn question, which edit indicates I don't understand NPOV? At the end of the day you still didn't provide any evidence but bulverism. Also how can I be a psychiatry by not giving any medical advice but only links to Wikipedia articles? Picking irrelevant diffs doesn't justify your personal attack at all. -- Akira😼CA 03:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, not an accusation or disparagement so not a violation of WP:NPA in any way. Just a selection of the relevant diffs are [7][8][9][10] I can find more if you want. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Accusing other editors for not understanding policies is not an accusation? Then you must have a "more than fluent" level of English. And still you haven't explain which parts of the NPOV these diffs contradicted, which I've asked you to do last time. These are also irrelevant to your accusation yesterday. Yet another irrelevant-diffs picking. -- Akira😼CA 03:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I haven't accused you “for” anything so yes I would appear to be more proficient in the English language than you. Being a native level speaker of a language isn’t required for editing the wiki in that language btw, but it is generally frowned upon to introduce broken english into the MOS if thats what you’re referring to. Also if what I did was a personal attack and violated WP:NPA what do you call the header you put on this section? I provided my diffs re NPOV, now lets see yours. I might as well just throw another one in there [11] which includes this doozy in which you claim that the MOS violates NPOV which is just silly "excluding Taiwan completely from China, not merely the People's Republic of China, is a violation of WP:NPOV.” Longstanding consensus on EN wikipedia is China means China if the context is contemporary, just because you disagree with that longstanding consensus doesn't mean it violates NPOV. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If some native speaker don't know what "accuse" means they still should look it up in the dictionary [12]

to say that someone is responsible for a crime or for having done something wrong

If you don't think "not understand the NPOV policy" is wrong then do you think it's right? Longstanding consensus on EN wikipedia is China means China this only applies to "many cases", and

When discussing politics or diplomatic relations, it may be necessary to use the full official name "People's Republic of China".

In cases where there is ambiguity, use the more specific "People's Republic of China"

The term "mainland China" refers to the People's Republic of China when contrasting with the islands of the Republic of China.

per MOS:NC-CN. You clearly haven't read the link I provided in front of that sentence even once before cherry-picking my comment. -- Akira😼CA 04:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I've also noticed you bypassed the armchair psychiatrist accusation, could you please give an explanation on this very offensive name calling? -- Akira😼CA 04:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You didn’t commit a crime or do anything wrong though, you appeared to misunderstand NPOV and you still appear to misunderstand NPOV. There is no criminal or moral judgement here, just a misunderstanding which I hope we can clear up. Also the MOS section you quoted supports my argument not yours, its very clear that if there is any ambiguity then it should be made clear that China means PRC on the EN wiki. I didn't bypass anything, linking the wikipedia page for psychological projection and pulling a quote which you yourself said served no constructive purpose and was just an “FYI” is in fact armchair psychiatry. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You are surely judging my comprehension of a Wikipedia policy if that's not an accusation then nothing is. Indeed the MoS tells

use the more specific "People's Republic of China"

, which means the "China" is ambiguous in such case and cannot be used any more to refer to PRC. The move from ROC to Taiwan won't work in favour of Ythlev's argument as WP:COMMONNAME only applies to titles not maps. Your last sentence is some circular reasoning like "You are an armchair psychiatrist because you are an armchair psychiatrist." that I don't even want to respond such illogical sentence. -- Akira😼CA 04:46, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I made an observation, it is not a judgement. Nobody starts out on wikipedia knowing everything, you’re still learning the ropes and thats ok. What you did was armchair psychiatry and incredibly insulting, there isn’t any beating around the bush here. Unless you have a constructive reason thats relevant to wikipedia to post something like its not ok, did you have a constructive reason? Because you said you didn’t before. How you got "which means the "China" is ambiguous in such case and cannot be used any more to refer to PRC” from that MOS I have no idea, that is the exact opposite of what the MOS is saying (or telling if you prefer). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Stating another person is "projecting" is a commonplace political tactic and not meant as psychiatrist advice, HEJ. But then again, playing the victim is also in the standard playbook of the alt-right and far-right. In terms of "offensive" material, I would recommend you clean up what indisputably are personal attacks on your own front doorstep before assuming the pretense of lecturing anyone else. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi CaradhrasAiguo now that you’re back on my talk page provide diffs for the warning you posted[13] here and then refused to explain. As was explained to you before you do have to provide evidence when challenged over a warning. You explained it away when challenged by another editor by insisting they provide an email for you to send diffs to with "I did not want to mention the specific diff on HEJ's talk because I know that, short of (the credible threat of) sanctions, he will not alter course and it would do nothing but to "keep the hornet's momentum going" (a la the adage "stir the hornet's nest”).” your stated reasoning rings hollow now that you're back on my page stirring the hornets nest as you put it. So provide diffs, now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop editing my comment

As what you and another editor have done in the quote box of my comment. This is a violation of WP:TALKO, thank you. -- Akira😼CA 05:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It appears to have been an inadvertent error by PE Fans which separated your name from the associated text, thats not a violation of WP:TALKO and responding to PE Fans' comment (which is what I did) most certainly does not violate talk page guidelines. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually now that I review the page's edit history you made the edit [14] not either PE Fans or myself. WTF? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dude you seems completely unaware what's happening there, that's a quote box and what I added [15] is a quote of PE Fans from ANI. Even what PE Fans added later [16] is still his own quote from ANI. But what you add is not a quote. I need to sign at the end because the quote box is still a part of my comment (and can't violate WP:TALKO myself). That's also not a part of the conversation so you cannot comment within it, it's a quote and the text is in the {{cquote}} template buddy. -- Akira😼CA 23:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

PE Fans' comment isn't a quote, what a quote would be is if you posted something that PE Fans had said and demarcated it as a quote... What you just supplied the diff for was an edit by PE Fans, not you. You started out by arguing that both myself and PE Fans had messed up, it now seems that you’re arguing that only I messed up? Also you can easily move the location of your signature without violating WP:TALKO, I’m not allowed to move it for you and regardless of whether or not you think PE Fans and myself violated WP:TALKO you are going to have to do so eventually. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes both you and PE Fans messed up, but at least what PE Fans put is his following comment in ANI. I will relocate the template and the signature.-- Akira😼CA 23:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you see why without a detailed examination of the article’s edit history it would have been impossible for me to distinguish what was an actual edit by PE Fans and what was your quote? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOL vs GNG

One discussion going against my stated position does not constitute proof that I'm wrong "time and time again". I can point to literally hundreds of examples of AFD discussions being closed exactly as I described, while you can point to very few other examples of discussions being closed differently than I described.

Every single candidate, in every single election everywhere, can always show some evidence of campaign coverage — so if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand an unelected candidate an exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL would be inherently meaningless. However, we have a longstanding consensus that keeping campaign brochures for every candidate in every election is not part of our mandate or our goal — and accordingly, we have a longstanding consensus that candidates get into Wikipedia in one of three ways:

1. They win the election and thereby actually hold an NPOL-passing office.
2. They already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway.
3. Their expected campaign coverage demonstrates a credible reason why their candidacy was much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten-year test for enduring significance.

The fact that you can point to one discussion that closed differently than the usual consensus is not proof that I'm wrong about what the usual consensus is, particularly when I can point to literally hundreds of examples of past discussions that were closed the other way. Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Please reply on your talk page where this discussion started, thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Thanks for your contribution on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, particularly with raising objections to the use of RIA Novosti. I don't welcome the sockpuppet accusations nor the aggressive response of User talk:Mellk. FobTown (talk) 15:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:TPG

You were asked, politely to not post, for any reason, on my talk page again. Then you not only were relentless in ignoring that, you overlooked Spencer's choice of the NESW option, and that the wording is continues vandalising or spamming. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous, this is continuing two different arguments from two different places in one comment. We’re both wasting too much time on this. You want to make a deal? I’l never post on your talk page again if you never post here. How does that sound to you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Only if you withdraw this present complaint, making much ado over what is simple anti-vandalism patroling. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I mean you did violate WP:PA even if in a small way, I agreed with the edit itself and if you look you’l note that I also reverted Thriw [17]. Do I now have to go in and re-do a big edit? Sure, but I still think that your edit was a good one. If the edit summary had been “Last clean; unconstructive editing by Thriw” there would be no problem here. If I put the message across that I was criticizing your edit itself I’m sorry, that was not my intention and it was a good edit, period. You do a lot of good work and I don’t think there would be any unsolvable conflict between us if you made the exact same main space edits but toned down the talk page and edit summary language. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

So now conceding that this and this are false equivalences, then? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by false equivalences, to each other or to something else? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

You made the falsehood You blocked them for PA in edit summaries and they’ve done it again right after their block ran out at Boing!'s talk, thus equating a description of someone's edits (why they are unconstructive despite not being outright vandalism, and not merely stating they are unconstructive) with a description of their inherent nature. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Even if you believe it to be a "a description of their inherent nature” its still not allowed. That other guy could actually have 100% IRL been a Banderist fascist etc and their edits expressed those views but you still couldn't say it on Wikipedia. We aren’t allowed to use political leanings as a means of "dismissing or discrediting their views." Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you have the correct understanding. I reported the new user to WP:AI/V because the content of most of their edits was instilling a certain POV (and for example, I used inference to conclude that this edit linking to a DAB page fit that trend, not because the editor might have held that POV in real life; indeed my comment on AI/V was limited to a remark on their clear editing patterns. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I accept that I may have misinterpreted your argument and that I now believe that you meant the comment only as criticism of the user’s edits and not as a criticism of the user’s political views. Can we now bugger off of each other’s talk pages for perpetuity? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus in China

What made you miss this discussion where considerable issues about the lead have been raised including the lack of mention of underreporting and Chinese suppression of information? NavjotSR (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I respect your bold edit and I agree that the lead needs a rewrite, but there is no consensus reached in the talk page section you just named. Thats why I started a lead re-write specific discussion at Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China#Lead, lets try to follow the WP:BRD process. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bolton Group

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Bolton Group, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in mainland China, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 14:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Come on CaradhrasAiguo, provide even a single diff on me doing that... You wouldn’t even provide a diff last time, perhaps you’re feeling a bit braver this time around? Remember that WP:ASPERSIONS applies in spades here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

This is only an appeal to add the WaPo just for the sake of having two sources (which there is no policy justification for). You removed the important 2019Q4 cremations context, wholly absent from the WaPo, without any direct justification. Stop playing pretend. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah thats not how it works... If what I did counts as "remove or blank page contents or templates” then what you did on the previous edit (the one I reverted) does as well, "use same source” doesn’t explain removing text either directly or indirectly. This is completely the wrong warning template to use here and you’ve already been put on notice about using talk page templates for intimidation purposes. Please be advised that phrases such as "Stop playing pretend.” are outside the bounds of WP:CIVILITY. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I see how it is, no justification for contravening WP:OVERCITE, instead going straight to warning templates and how I am phrasing myself. You have been warned to not revert for the sake of it, too, it appears we have a demonstration of WP:IDHT here. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thats not a contravention of WP:OVERCITE btw... Overcite is when you have like six+ sources and its a mix or reliable and moderately reliable, not two reliable sources, the overcite page goes into detail about what is over citation and what is no, would you be good enough to make a specific policy based argument from the content of WP:OVERCITE rather than a vague invocation of the whole thing? Ps I take your continued posting on my talk page as a retraction of your request that I stay off your talk page and consent for me to post there. Let me know if that is mistaken and you would like to freely post here but want me to stay off your talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

My assessment is that, between the two, the only substantive fact that WaPo cites that is not present in Bloomberg, is the 19-hour opening time. The Bloomberg citation of the total cremations in Wuhan in all of 2019 makes it provide necessary context that the WaPo piece, which reeks more of politicking, lacks. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 21:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good, I respect your opinion even if I do not share it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Horse_Eye_Jack reported by User:Augend (Result: ). Thank you. Augend (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reaction

I have been reading this page because I am a little bored during the wuhan virus lockdown.

It is very depressing to read some parts of it especially those parts where somebody called CA is mentioned.

In fact it is enough to put anyone off editing wikipedia for life.

I admire your tenacity and knowledge about WP but so sad to see the editing wars, frustration and venom (well disguised of course) so prevalent on WP which seems to be mainly caused by people throwing rule books at each other.

Now I understand why the logo for WP is a broken jigsaw puzzle, obviously someone squashed it with a WP rule book in an infantile rage and this is what's left.

Hope you don't mind my comment on your talk page, would you prefer I put it on my own talk page, not sure if I will be here for long.

source: Billybostickson (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Critical and Final Warning

You have a history of the following actions:

• Unsubstantiated Accusations WP:PA
• Not WP:AGF or issuing downright inappropriate warnings, particularly in the area of WP:BITE
• Edit warring
• Removing sources
• Vandalism
• Non-collegial actions and behaviors WP:NOTHERE
• Personal attacks

Continuing these actions may lead to a block.

Here's a timeline of these: DD/MM/YYYY (days elapsed since last warning/days elapsed since last warning regarding particular area of concern)
Dec 2019 (N-A): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings
15 Jan 2020 (30/N-A): Vandalism
25 Jan 2020 (10/N-A): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings
26 Jan 2020 (1/N-A): Edit warring
4 Feb 2020 (9/19): Vandalism/Blanking sources
5 Feb 2020 (1/10): AIV: Edit warring
10 Feb 2020 (5/15): Personal attacks/Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings
20 Feb 2020 (10/16): Vandalism
1 Mar 2020 (9/24): Edit warring/Reverting appropriate edits
2 Mar 2020 (1/20): Non-collegial actions/Personal attacks WP:NOTHERE
13 Mar 2020 (11/21): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings
15 Mar 2020 (2/N-A): Failing to abide by WP:NPOV
18 Mar 2020 (3/5): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings/NPOL v. GNG
2 Apr 2020 (15/15): Personal attacks/Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings/Unsubstantiated accusations
2 Apr 2020 (0/N-A): WP:TPG
16 Apr 2020 (14/46): Edit warring
17 Apr 2020 (1/15): Not WP:AGF/issuing inappropriate and uncalled-for warnings
20 Apr 2020 (3/3): Warning someone for "general discussion on a topic" when they were discussing moving said page

Unsubstantiated Accusations (1 instance)

• 2 Apr 2020

Not WP:AGF or issuing downright inappropriate warnings, particularly in the area of WP:BITE (7 instances)

• Dec 2019
• 25 Jan 2020
• 10 Feb 2020
• 13 Mar 2020
• 18 Mar 2020
• 17 Apr 2020
• 20 Apr 2020

Edit warring (4 instances)

• 26 Jan 2020
• 5 Feb 2020
• 1 Mar 2020
• 16 Apr 2020

Removing sources/Vandalism (3 instances)

• 15 Jan 2020
• 4 Feb 2020
• 20 Feb 2020

Non-collegial actions and behaviors WP:NOTHERE (1 instance)

• 2 Mar 2020

Personal attacks (3 instances [numerous others not included due to deviations from official meaning])

• 10 Feb 2020
• 2 Mar 2020
• 2 Apr 2020

In general, you've been repeating the same action two weeks after each successive warning, and violating Wikipedia policies anywhere from multiple times a day to once a week. The longest you've gone without a warning of some type was 30 days.

This is your last warning. Please change your behavior. If you are going to challenge this warning, please bring your evidence and reasoning with you. Talk is cheap. Augend (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Jesus christ just take me to a noticeboard already... Well besides the edit warring noticeboard [18] where your claim was dismissed. Also just fyi your post here violates a whole host of policies and guidelines like WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. This is absolutely ridiculous, and your canvassing of CA [19] is less than appropriate. In the future please try to contribute to wikipedia constructively rather than bullying those whose views are different from yours. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Also holy shit can not emphasize this enough, use WP:diffs... I don’t even know what you’re referring to for most of those. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

There is evidence and it's fully backed up with warnings on your talkpage so it's not WP:NPA, I don't even know where you're coming from with WP:ASPERSIONS - that's completely irrelevant and we've assumed good faith 18 times through 18 warnings, surely if you didn't take the first ten warnings you would have taken the next eight. Augend (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Please read the definition of "canvassing"; I merely reached out to see if my representation of your egregious behavior on Wikipedia so not WP:ASPERSIONS lmao were accurate. These entries are a rolling collection of your warnings that you never adequately addressed, instead choosing to attack the person issuing the warning WP:NPA-style. Since you asked for it, I'm going to take this to ANI. Thanks. Augend (talk) 18:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

So its a summary of my talk page? If thats what you’re doing you should check out the archives in the upper right corner of this page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey @C.Fred:, you were pretty good at defusing this editor on their talk page. Any suggestion here? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

[He's taken you to WP:ANI

Doug Weller talk 19:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Just great. Thanks for letting me know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Horse Eye Jack

Thank you for creating Peter Tsai.

User:Blythwood, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

It's probably a good idea to put his Chinese name at the start as well so people can search for it, in the manner of say William Wang.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Blythwood (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Horse Eye Jack

Thank you for creating Taiwanese whisky.

User:Blythwood, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Interesting topic! A relative's a fan so I'm aware this a good topic to have an article on. I've created a Wikimedia Commons category and linked to it.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Blythwood}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Blythwood (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your behaviour

I hope you don't take this personally. I want to ask you to reconsider your aggressive attitude towards me. You made an accusation of abusing the spirit and the letter of an essay [20], bossed me about my typo [21], apparently tracked my previous edits to vote against a recent AfD nominated by me, but this ridicule of my comment by loling [22], which I just saw, is way beyond acceptable. I'm pretty sure that you are well aware of Wikipedia's code of conduct, so I am not going to link anything for you. I think it is natural for users to have disagreements over edits, but that should lead to offensive language. Please consider this a friendly talk. Pahlevun (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

”lol” isn’t offensive language. I did in fact find your comment amusing, please assume good faith. I didn’t stalk your deletion, I follow both list of Iran-related deletion discussions and list of Politics-related deletion discussions so you can thank Captain Raju for my participation in that discussion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for this edit restoring part of the Xinjiang region's history to Central Asia history [23] Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lisa Wilson-Foley

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lisa Wilson-Foley you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barrettsprivateers -- Barrettsprivateers (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Edits

Hello, I do not see how my edits to Mainland China are unconstructive. The United Kingdom of China and Taiwan (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

You inserted the following with zero citation “Mainland China has developed greatly over the last few decades, such that it has attained the developed status, similar to the vassal states of China (Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau), Japan, and the West." [24]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok.The United Kingdom of China and Taiwan (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added an official source for Belarus' 54 countries in Xinjiang re-education camps

I went to Papersmart (http://papersmart.un.org) which redirects to http://papersmart.unmeetings.org. There I went to https://papersmart.unmeetings.org/ga/third/74th-session/statements/, I chose Belarus as a speaker and the second item's "download" button linked to http://statements.unmeetings.org/media2/23328878/belarus-joint-statement-cerd-chair-oct-29.pdf with the list of 54 countries. So I have added back the CNSnews source that you removed in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xinjiang_re-education_camps&diff=932847706&oldid=932846017 It looks like CNSnews, unlike The Diplomat and CNN, managed to find the list of 54 countries. Guilombre (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

There is consensus that CNSnews is generally unreliable [25], it shouldn’t be used for statements of fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Noted. Have a good day ! Guilombre (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

ANI-notice 15 May 2020

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Horse Eye Jack (misuse of Uw-nor4). --194.207.146.167 (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lisa Wilson-Foley

The article Lisa Wilson-Foley you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lisa Wilson-Foley for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barrettsprivateers -- Barrettsprivateers (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 13:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Supreme People's Court

It is not wise to edit war while I am in the midst of discussing the dispute with the other editor. El_C 01:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I added a citation needed tag to the original text as well, is that ok? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is better — thank you. El_C 01:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

In the future should I just add the citation needed tag to the altered text rather than reverting before tagging? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That really depends on the particular circumstances of the given case — you'll have to use your discretion. El_C 01:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

What POV? The quotation marks there don’t mean doubt they mean thats what the banner says. This is not the sort of thing this template is made for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit warning notices

Do not post inappropriate edit warning to my talk page. Springee (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It was appropriate, you were edit warring at Office of Inspector General for the Department of Transportation‎. I also note that you’ve been warned by multiple other editors *today* for edit warring on other pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

As have you, Horse Eye Jack. By me. I don't understand why both of you choose to communicate through edit summaries rather than engage the (blank!) article talk page. This reflects poorly on both of you. El_C 18:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I’ve never had much success with Springee on talk pages, on the rare occasion you can nail them down they always escalates to noticeboards etc when he loses an argument which means you’re in for a weeks long slog over a not very important edit. Reverts however they respond to, often immediately and with a response plus additional information in the edit summary. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)