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)

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 [1], 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[2] 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 [3][4][5][6] 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 [7] 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 [8]

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[9] 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 [10] 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 [11] is a quote of PE Fans from ANI. Even what PE Fans added later [12] 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 [13]. 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 [14] 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 [15] 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 [16], bossed me about my typo [17], apparently tracked my previous edits to vote against a recent AfD nominated by me, but this ridicule of my comment by loling [18], 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 [19] 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." [20]. 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 [21], 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 they loses an argument which means you’re in for a weeks long slog over a not very important edit that wasn’t your edit in the first place. 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)

If there is misconduct which you deem worthy of documenting and submitting as a complaint, it should be presented to the proper noticeboard rather than mentioned in passing. El_C 18:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t believe I’m describing misconduct, rather frustrating conduct that remains within the letter of the law so to speak while being as obstinate and fabian as possible. Although I guess the whole edit warring thing would be less than kosher, how big a deal is edit warring short of 3rr? It seems like a very grey area. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@El C:. HEJ, I'm not sure your claim of "never had much luck" has much merit. We've had very few interactions so any claim that I'm unreasonable is perhaps based on one or two examples where we didn't agree? But perhaps you have an actual example vs just an empty accusation. Springee (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It can be a big deal. As would mis/conduct which skirts the line, if it is indeed chronic in nature. It could be seen as gaming the system, if proven true. But, again, careful documentation would be necessary as would the proper venue, which this user talk page is not. El_C 18:36, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree that this is the wrong venue for this sort of discussion and I’m probably the wrong person to put together that sort of thing given my relatively limited contact with Springee. I’ve only felt the need to keep notes of misconduct with one user and Springee has never really done anything to me that would provide the necessary impetus to do that kind of work during leisure hours. I enjoy creating and working on niche articles, arguing on talk pages and noticeboards is more a necessary evil than something I really like doing. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dahua Technology. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Please read the citation before making silly revert. Central Huijin Investment owned 1% of the Dahua Technology.Template:Z187 Matthew hk (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary implied that they didn't own any at all... You said "del false info on ownership” but the info you deleted never said how much they owned they just said they owned some. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nope, some editors tagged the infobox of the company as partial state-owned enterprise. And a sane media won't list 1% government ownership as notable or mention it at lede. Matthew hk (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If thats your argument than you’re admitting your edit summary was incomplete as it didnt include the major action taken on the edit. If you want to run around giving out warning templates over your bad edit summaries thats your prerogative but I wouldn’t make a habit of it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

My edit summary don't have problem just like |owner= Template:Infobox company meant "notable" owner that defined in Template:Infobox company/doc. If i own share of a listed company, even 1%, i don't think there is any media to report me as "notable" owner. Same thing apply to Dahua Technology, if you can really find a responsible media company to have a news article that report "Central Huijin " as "owner", then we may reconsider readding Central Huijin back to the article. Matthew hk (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

If your edit summary is misleading or incomplete don’t blame others for not understanding what you meant. Your argument about the text in the lead (not the bit in the infobox) appears to be one of due weight not of factuality, again either your edit summary was bad or you’re making multiple conflicting arguments here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Matthew hk (talk) 18:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

So mature... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

RSS and Terrorism

Indian Police hasn't ever claimed that RSS is a terrorist organization. Only Indian National Congress claims that while RSS isn't officially declared as terrorist organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whole India (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference page was cited

Hello, Horse Eye Jack. Can you please explain in detail why you consider a link to established Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Just reverting the edit with little explanation is quite offensive. It appears as if you try to ban the view disagreed with your opinion. (And I felt like it was your intention.) Thank you, in advance, for constructive discussion. Wavethesecond (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Andy Ngo revert

I'm sure you area aware that the Ngo article is subject to DS with additional revert limits. In reverting my edit you restored an edit that was recently made and contested. You didn't respect BRD nor did you take your concerns to the talk page first. That is problematic given the contentious nature of the article. As a show of good faith I would ask that you self revert until the talk page discussion works it's way through the topic. Springee (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Next time make a better argument for a revert than that the source being accurately summarized is “alternative” which does not have a bearing on reliability. BRD is optional and doesn't become required because a page is under discretionary sanctions. Isn’t it you who should have opened a discussion on the talk page after your revert if you wanted to respect BRD? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The fact that this is a questionable source wasn't the primary reason to revert, the fact is the fact failed WP:V given the source. I said as much in my edit summary. As for BRD, the edit was "bold". I reverted. Per BRD, I said why in my edit summary ("When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary..."). As for discuss, per BRD: "Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting." (emphasis mine). It doesn't say the person reverting needs to start the discuss, it says the person wishing to challenge the revert. In this case that was you. The correct procedure would have been to start a talk page discussion, ping the involved editors and challenge the reversion. Once the discussion was started your efforts to find a compromise text are noted and appreciated BTW [[22]]. Springee (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary "The implication that Ngo is coordinating needs proper sourcing, not a vague accusation from alternative press” actually suggests that you have found the information in the source but that you find the source to be unreliable. I don’t think your edit summary gets across the point you intended it do, the talk page discussion has also been productive... All of this could have been avoided if you made the talk page post you made after I reverted you before I reverted you but you’re also right that it could have been avoided if I opened a talk page discussion instead of reverting you so I take responsibility for that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I read it as "the source doesn't say X" and "the source is poor for such a claim". On review I can see how you read, "the source is poor for such a claim" is perfectly reasonable. Such confusion is why the next step, and the one BRD prescribes is to start a discussion. Well in the end we both can see where our actions could have been improved. At least the discussion is happening and I think we can find some sort of compromise text that will please no one but keep all not too unhappy. Springee (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for bringing this dispute to my talk page rather than cluttering the article talk page, I think separating them bade it made it easier for us to reach consensus there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Refactoring other’s comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Falun Gong, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: I do not think i touched your comment in the falun gong talk page. please provide the difference. Precious Stone 00:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Not my comment, Bloodofox's [23], you placed a copy of it after their other comment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Also just FYI you need to reply the section above this one before doing other wikipedia activities. It would appear you have a relationship with FG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

i learnt a new comment need to be added in the end, so i made the copy of his original words to the end and then responded it. if you have better way, please let me know.

you might have heard CCP hired fifty-cent commentators in China. In fact, CCP hired westerners as well. Recently multiple professors in the US were arrested and indicted, as they worked as CCP spy. If you are interested in them, I can find some media links for you. Here is one https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/mar/11/james-lewis-another-academic-ensnared-in-chinese-r/

I worry here anti-FLG activists who insist in using original research materials could have COI issue, but they tend to label others who prevented them from promoting their activism agenda as being COI.Precious Stone 01:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You can quote them, copying their entire comment and then responding to that comment like it was the original comment is not appropriate as a casual observer would be unable to tell which comment the other person actually made. You may have noticed that my conflicts on wikipedia have been almost entirely with Chinese nationalists... Are you suggesting that I’m a 50c? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

That was what did, quoting them, copying their entire comment and then responding to that comment. I still do not understand what went wrong.

it was you who accused me for COI. i did not, but expressed my worry. Precious Stone 02:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

You didn't quote them... There are no quotation marks in the text you added nor is it colored or italicized to indicate its a quote. What COI could I possible have? Less than 1% of my edits are FG related, more than 90% of your edits are FG related... Thats why you’re being asked the question, 90% of edits being in a very very specific and obscure area area that the user has no connections to is a bit odd, wouldn’t you agree? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:20, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

okay, will check how to quote somebody else’s comment. Thanks. As for my recent 4 edits on the Falun page and a lot of edits on talk page, it was due to the fact that this article was added original research by user bloodofox, i tried to fix the issue, and you prevented me from doing so. Then in the past, there were other activists as i mentioned 2 of them in the ANER comment, I tried to discuss with them, which consumed a lot of edits. For other topics i recently edited there were no such activists. Naturally the edits for discussion were much less. The infiltration of CCP To World Health Organization and the United Nations were obvious, which led the virus spread to the world. For sensitive topics, if one holds a pro CCP view and promotes the view using OR, it is reasonable to think one would announce whether there is a coi issue involved, if one feel a moral obligation. Precious Stone 10:49, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

But it was never OR... I don’t see anything in bloodofox’s editing history that would indicate they’re pro-CCP and as for me I’ve been accused of being anti-CCP a full dozen times now so its nice to get the diversity of being accused of being on both sides. Have you ever considered that instead of there being a grand communist conspiracy against you that you’re just wrong? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Never OR? I am shocked that your words are so dishonest. On the article talk page, detailed analysis were given to you in the past 4 days.

It was you who falsely attacked me for COI. So i would like to showcase some examples what COI looks like. Pro-CCP is one example. Btw, being accused of anti CCP? This does not mean a user is not pro-CCP. Using anti-CCP for cover-up could serve for better performing pro-CCP at key issues. You should know there were Soviet Union and CCP spies who worked for the western intelligence community for decades and were finally caught up. Aside from Pro-CCP, ideology difference could also trigger COI based activism as well. For example, one NYT article and one nbc article did say Epochtimes were involved in right-wing politics. Activists made use of this and label the newspaper as extreme-right in name of NYT and nbc, but these two sources did not say that at all. Do you think this is not OR？Precious Stone 19:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep going, I’m enjoying this conspiracy theory where those who disagree with you are really deep cover Chinese agents. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

i have noticed that activists like to label others who follow WP:PG and try to prevent them for WP:SOAP as SPA or conspiracy theorist. The fact is that i never said you are a deep cover CCP agent. In labeling and attacking others, the evidence showing Bloodofox’s and your OR contents were ignored. So is it a distraction created for cover-up the NOR violation?

Do you really dispute that you’re a WP:SPA? I don’t mean it as an insult and there is nothing inherently bad about it per say but it does accurately describe your editing history. I’m also not sure what you mean by “activists,” can you be specific? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I have explained why many of my edits were consumed on the discussions with activists. You should stop labeling and attacking people. According to WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to usernames, articles, draftspace, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. Therefore, content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

Based on WP:SPA,

Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has determined that "single purpose accounts and editors who hold a strong personal viewpoint on a particular topic covered within Wikipedia are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project."

Bloodofox’s strong personal viewpoint on FLG and related groups can be seen from many of his words, so can your viewpoint. It appears your guys' single purpose in editing FLG topic serve to advocate your viewpoints. i guess it is not good but understandable. As long as following the WP rules, i think biased users like you both can edit on this topic. The fact you kept adding OR materials (eg. the unsupported two lines, and the misrepresenting NYT and NBC for the extreme-right claim) to the articles, at the same time, you kept deleting at least 6 reliable sources including Washington Post, NBC and the Freedom House that reported different views with you two, indicates that you two's behaviors are similar to the two anti-FLG activist usernames indefinitely banned in WP:ARBFLG. This is not constructive to the Wikipedia project, but disruptive. You should stop. Precious Stone 13:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

What viewpoint do I hold on this topic? I don’t believe I’ve expressed one. Your comments have drifted over the line into WP:PA, if you don’t stop there will be a noticeboard in your future. Per WP:Aspersions you need to provide diffs which support your claims. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

i saw this one earlier, and it is a kind of viewpoint.

Its inappropriate to say that the reporter for a WP:RS is conflating the two when obviously they aren’t, the Shen Yun performance they attended was homophobic... End of story. If you would like to take this to RSN please do, otherwise drop the stick Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

you hold such a strong view without any evidence, there is no surprise to see your edits these days. each time it was you Who reverted me, after your reverting, each time I tried to discuss with you in great detail on the talk page. For those original research contents you added back, i even said if you can change them to quotes or similar meanings based on the provided sources, I would have no disagreement. my edits were not simply reverting yours, since I modified with new contents and rationales on the talk page and in the edit summary. Yet you reported me for 3rr - for my 4 edits in 3 days. You define this as 3rr, which could be the first time in Wikipedia ? Yesterday you labeled me as spa as well as a conspiracist, and asked me what i mean by ‘activist’, so i tried to provide the answer for you. There is no intention for attacking you at all. I tried to prevent original research contents. In a way it helps you guys do less disruptive work as well. You already reported me. Now you are threatening to report me again? Precious Stone 17:21, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I reported you for edit warring not 3rr and specifically said it wasn’t a 3rr violation. Please retract your false statement. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

the noticeboard is for edit warring and 3rr. Users tend to think them as the same thing. Under the section Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning, you wrote “Its not a bright line 3rr as its spread over three day...”. Strictly speaking, they are different. Thanks for the reminding. Okay let me say you reported me for edit warring Without warning. The 4 edits occurred in 3 days. Each time you reverted me, i tried to discuss with you in details... I still do not think i am the one who should be reported. Precious Stone 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

In general you need consensus on the talk page before you can restore your edit to the page, that takes more like a week to get not 24 hours. The page is also under WP:discretionary sanctions as its FG related and WP has historically had a lot of problems with FG followers coming onto wikipedia and being disruptive. Generally making more than one revert on a page under discretionary sanctions within 24 hours is a bad idea. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Also I didn’t call you a conspiracy theorist, I said that your idea was a conspiracy theory. Theres a difference. As for the SPA allegation the reason I make it is your edit history, your top 10 edited pages are The Epoch Times (35 edits), Falun Gong 34 edits, Li Hongzhi (31 edits), 2008 Sichuan earthquake (18 edits), Tiananmen Square self-immolation incident (15 edits), Governmental lists of cults and sects (11 edits), Adsorption refrigeration (11 edits), Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (11 edits), Zhang Jianhong (11 edits), Fazhengnian 10 edits. Seven of those ten and all top three are within the FG space. If we look at your top 10 edited talk pages *all* are within the FG space. You can look at my and the other user you accuse of being an activist’s top 10 edited pages... I don’t think you’ll find anything within the FG space. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

This section title you put above is "Refactoring other’s comments". Yesterday after seeing your advice, I already adjusted the quote on FG talk page using the block quote format (credit to your advice). So the issue has been done. For any topics, if you are interested in, you may open a new section. Thanks. Precious Stone 02:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to respond in the COI section given thats the concern raised by your edit history. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

This section title you put above is "Refactoring other’s comments". Yesterday after seeing your advice, I already adjusted the quote on FG talk page using the block quote format (credit to your advice). So the issue has been done. For any topics, if you are interested in, you may open a new section. Thanks. Precious Stone 02:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Re: Conflict of interest

Hello, Marvin 2009. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

i can announce i have no COI issue. it appears a designed insult to label me on this. Precious Stone 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How do you explain your first edits being promotional? You said earlier you only promoted NTDTV because you didn't understand the rules yet, can you elaborate on that? Seems odd to still be promoting FG organizations more than a decade later if there isn't any conflict of interest, the effect of your very first edits and your most recent edits was the same... To promote FG organizations and deflect criticism of them. Did you know that almost 90% of your edits are FG related? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

1. Your questioned about the first edits. Please refer my comment 1 to your ANER report. Your words

”You said earlier you only promoted NTDTV...”

were simply not true. I never said i promoted NTDTV. What’s the point for making up my words then using them to accuse me here? The first 2 edits showed I did not understand how to edit properly, which has nothing to do with COI as you claimed.

2. You asked about my most recent edits. In fact you are fully aware that my most recent edits on the Falun Gong article were the engaging with you, which was to address the WP:NOR violation issues. Bloodofox’s edits (that you fiercely protected by 3 times's reverting) advocate that Epoch Times promotes extreme-right politics based on the NYT and NBC reports, but these two reports did not say so. So I changed it to “right-wing” instead. And he also says that “FLG administers...”, but no sources support that claim either, so I changed this to “FLG practitioners founded...”. Therefore, I only corrected other users’ inaccurate representations of their sources of criticism.

3. You claimed: "To promote FG organizations and deflect criticism of them. Did you know that almost 90% of your edits are FG related." I do not know almost 90% my edits ... but my top 10 edited pages have 6 Falun Gong topic related, another 4 pages unrelated to Falun Gong. ​​​​​​​I did edit different topics, such as, earthquake, refrigeration, and other topics. The reason that Falun Gong related page was one focus is given below:

a. As far as I noticed, historically speaking, activists often came to do things forbidden in WP:SOAP. As WP:ARBFLG shows, 2 of them were indefinitely banned for this topic. Years back, another 2 anti FLG activist users I encountered were also banned for the topic. Activists can be easily identified, as they tend to add WP:OR contents or CCP related unreliable sources. They are not necessarily CCP followers though. BTW, users who try to prevent activism shouldn’t be called “disrupting” wiki pages, nor should they be labelled as FG followers or COI in an attempt to discredit them.

b. Preventing vandalism by some activists on controversial topics, spent many of my edits. While other pages are not as controversial as these, there is no need for much talk or changes. To see who is an activist or has COI, one should not just rely on what the top edited pages and top edited talk pages are, as it’s not necessarily true. The key for identifying activist or COI is as WP:SOAP mentioned

“content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: Advocacy, propaganda. …You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.“

I did not advocate my own opinions in the articles, but have rather accurately represented what reliable sources say which was not “deflected criticisms” of Falun Gong. Precious Stone 21:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)