User talk:Horse Eye Jack

Your submission at Articles for creation: William A. DiBella has been accepted

William A. DiBella, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matthew Ritter has been accepted

Matthew Ritter, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Horse-eye jack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snook (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Metropolitan District of Connecticut has been accepted

Metropolitan District of Connecticut, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jon Landry (politician)

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 Jon Landry (politician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jon Landry (politician)

The article Jon Landry (politician) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable politician, per WP:POLITICIAN. Formerly one of seven council members for a city with a population of 25,000. Main claim of significance is an alleged sex scandal.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thirman L. Milner has been accepted

Thirman L. Milner, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Horse Eye Jack. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Connecticut Invitation

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Connecticut-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Connecticut? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Connecticut-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-☖ 21:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

TK-3

I will note that pl wiki has a separate entry on it: pl:TK-3 Eventually we should too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Lisa Wilson-Foley

Hello, Horse Eye Jack,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Meatsgains and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Lisa Wilson-Foley should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Wilson-Foley .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Meatsgains^(talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Meatsgains: Im curious as to how you consider the notability requirements not to be met, don’t the dozen plus articles (including multiple full stories in the NYT) and a book not go well above and beyond general notability WP:BIO requirements? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A star for you

		The Special Barnstar
		For level headed impartiality and good Wikipedia work! Lubbad85 (☎) 00:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A Star

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your proper Wikipedian efforts Lubbad85 (☎) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/2602:252:D91:E650:1006:1361:4BC3:27F2

Seems we both have had similar issues with this IP. Just dropping this note in case you were curious. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Drop a comment over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, it might be worth protecting both pages if this election is going to get testy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I was going to, but it's currently just the one IP. When things pick up maybe, but I think we can manage so far. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m up against three reverts and he’s still going, mind lending a hand? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I am out for reverts for Luke Bronin as well. I'd revert the IP on Eddie Perez (politician), but I honestly fear the potential accusation that we Tag teamed this IP. I filed a report at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luke_Bronin which hopefully will be sufficient. I'm sorry that I am not being more helpful here. :( –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I reported them for the three reverts, at least the edits for Luke Bronin include an attempt to cite sources, on the Perez page they're just deleting everything about his extremely well sourced guilt plea. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I know that's what's incredibly frustrating on my end. None of the sources actually say what the IP says they say, but it does make it look like they are trying. I'm just going to head off Wikipedia for the night lest I get too worked up about this. Hopefully the process will play itself out. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the text to fix your formatting btw for the WP:AN/3RR report:

== [[User:2602:252:d91:e650:1006:1361:4bc3:27f2]] reported by [[User:Horse Eye Jack]] (Result: ) ==
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Eddie Perez (politician)}} <br />
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|2602:252:d91:e650:1006:1361:4bc3:27f2}}

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Perez_(politician)&diff=895709959&oldid=895709665]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Perez_(politician)&diff=895719843&oldid=895718379] 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Perez_(politician)&diff=895716945&oldid=895713251]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Perez_(politician)&diff=895713019&oldid=895712320]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eddie_Perez_(politician)&diff=895722747&oldid=755772555]

Comments: New user, has only edited the page of a political candidate and his opponent. I’ve never filled one of these out before, apologies in advance for any errors. ~~~~

In case you find that useful –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, very helpful. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

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 Arab–Israeli conflict. 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 Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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 Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greg Abbott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Hayden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Connecticut Juvenile Training School

Thanks for writing Connecticut Juvenile Training School! I appreciate that very much!

A few things:

• All the references I've read described CTJS as replacing Long Lane School rather than it being a rename of Long Lane. Therefore I'll start a separate article on Long Lane.
• Remember to please put the specific title, date, publisher, etc. in references after they are auto-generated. The reason why: if you have a reference there and the link dies, the future editors may be unable to find new/additional copies of that references.
• Be sure to archive your references on: webcitation.org, Wayback Machine, archive.is, and/or megalodon.jp (I suggest archiving each URL on at least two of each service)

Happy editing! WhisperToMe (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to sort out the addresses and didn’t get anywhere, you may well be right and there are multiple similar sized parcels outside Middletown that where donated around the same time for a similar purpose. The Long Lane School page mentions that Wesleyan tried to buy it in the 1950’s, did they eventually succeed in doing so? Because that would explain what happened to the property (the only significant parcels on Long Lane itself are owned by Wesleyan these days). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems like exactly what happened. I found that the CJTS is in another location by a psychiatric hospital. I noticed from 1990s articles that CJTS was initially called "New Long Lane" but the final name was different. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of George A. Tomasso

Hello Horse Eye Jack,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged George A. Tomasso for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

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

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve George A. Tomasso

Hello, Horse Eye Jack,

Thanks for creating George A. Tomasso! I edit here too, under the username Chris troutman and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

I'm not sure WP:GNG reaches that far, but others may disagree, which is why I'm not nominating this for deletion. I think better sourcing is needed.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Chris troutman}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Copper Hill Golf Club

Hello, Horse Eye Jack,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Copper Hill Golf Club, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Shari Cantor

Hello, Horse Eye Jack,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Shari Cantor, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shari Cantor

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 Shari Cantor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Shari Cantor for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shari Cantor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shari Cantor (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Invite to the First Connecticut Wikimedia Community Conversation

Hey Horse Eye Jack! As a high output editor, I'd love to see you at this even in New Haven. It's this August 10th. Would you be able to attend?

Details can be found here: [1]

Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Criticism of Huawei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Saudi Arabia–Taiwan relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ROCAF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Industrial Technology Research Institute

Hi. I think the situation with the IP editor 140.96.152.23 could have been handled a bit better. The edit summary here and the extra text in the {{uw-paid1}} message [2] was WP:BITE-y. Notifying undisclosed paid editors is crucial, but let's educate them and avoid public shaming. If they knowingly and repeatedly flout the rules, then we can wikt:lower the boom. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

A little shaming seemed about right for an organization that holds web governance among its core competencies. Staff at ITRI should know better and I’m not going to treat them like ordinary vandals. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Menachem Mendel Schneerson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Putting basic warnings like this on experienced editors pages is generally considered bad form. You appear to have been involved in reverting this exact same word on related multiple pages for the better part of a decade e.g. Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Shach_-_”controversial_and_divisive”_? so its almost laughable that you think my hours long interaction with only a single revert of a revert on a single page constitutes an WP:Editwar or anything similar. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"You appear to have been involved in reverting this exact same word on related multiple pages for the better part of a decade"? Really? Provide evidence of this decade-long revert war. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought I had, yes it appears I did. Again I asked you to review Talk:Elazar_Shach/Archive_2#Shach_-_”controversial_and_divisive”_? and related. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there was a discussion about using the term "controversial" in the lede of the Shach article in 2011. How is that relevant to your claim that "you appear to have been involved in reverting this exact same word on related multiple pages for the better part of a decade"? A discussion 8 years ago and another discussion on the same topic today are not "the better part of a decade", but rather two discussions 8 years apart. And by the way, I took the exact same "position" in both discussions; that you shouldn't use the vague term "controversial" to describe the individual in the lede, per WP:LABEL. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You might wish to review xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Jayjg/0/Elazar_Shach before you make such certain assertions about did or did not happen back in 2011 (and in the time since). It would even appear that you violated the three-revert rule as well as made a false claim that consensus had been reached on the talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Really? Which edits violated 3RR? Please list them explicitly, keeping in mind that consecutive edits count as one edit when calculating 3RR. Then try to explain exactly how that's relevant to your claim that I've been "involved in reverting this exact same word on related multiple pages for the better part of a decade". Keep in mind that the word is "controversial". Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

You can make one of two arguments... You can argue that you have been involved in a long term pattern of reversion but justify it because the term is “controversial” or you can argue that you haven't done so at all. You cant argue both. At the very least be honest and admit that at this point you may be a little biased towards one view or another. Menachem Mendel Schneerson seems to be one you have a deep sense of ownership of (See xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/en.wikipedia.org/Jayjg/0/Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson). How many people have you harassed over good faith edits to this and related pages? Dozens? Hundreds? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Or, I can point out that before this month the last time I edited the Schneerson article was in 2012, that your claims of "a longer term pattern of reversion" and "deep sense of ownership" are ridiculous deflections and obfuscations, and that you haven't brought a single shred of credible evidence for any of your claims. If you can show any evidence for any of your claims please feel free to try; when you fail, and try to deflect again, feel free to review this comment and my previous ones. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My dear Jayjg you appear to have wound yourself up into such a fit that you are no longer talking sense. While it has been fun to watch your adorable struggle to explain your actions the amusement value drops with each attempt (the old “you deflected so now I can deflect ad-nauseum and refuse to engage in good faith” play is so juvenile). Go find another kiddie to play with old man. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Please feel free to review my previous posts. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Fair comment so I looked again. Per comments, reviewed my changes and accepted reversions in many cases. I left things clearly historically accurate even if old. But most of what I took out was not just old but non-neutral i.e. the Nortel section, on which I reported heavily at the time. The claim of "crucial government support" is disputed and not neutral, as the question of whether Huawei is government-supported is part of the attack and unbalanced. I did pull old non-neutral and possibly inaccurate claims, such as Nortel destruction and crucial government support. Because "white label" is much less important today, I replaced "provides" with "has provided." The article is now slightly more neutral and contains numerous criticisms of Huawei. If you choose to reinsert them, I will not revert because we both have better things to do.

Disambiguation link notification for August 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adam Everett Livix, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDF (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

EMG

is not banned. Please stop striking through their comments or reverting their edits on that basis. WP:BANREVERT applies to banned accounts, not blocked ones. nableezy - 16:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@user:Nableezy You misinterpret wikipedia policy, the account is a sock of a banned account and therefore all edits were made on the behalf of a banned user. See WP:BLOCKEVASION: "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. However, in closed discussions, comments by blocked editors should not generally be reverted or struck through.”

I *choose* to revert any edit by the sock of a banned user I find. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Uh, no, I assure you that you are the one misinterperting the policy. E.M.G was not blocked or banned from anything besides the topic of crime and illegal immigration at the time of those edits. None of the edits you are reverting are from either a sock of a banned account or made in violation of any block. Seeing as I am the one who reported E.M.G to be checked I think I have a pretty good handle on this case, and you are quite clearly wrong here. What banned account was E.M.G a sockpuppet of? nableezy - 16:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I think the reference is to PE65000. Horse Eye Jack, you can't make such wild speculations about a user (yes, even an indeffed sock) seemingly on a whim, with no evidence whatsoever. I've redacted your comment, but would caution you not to do so again in the strongest possible terms. Thank you. El_C 03:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but that name wont do, as that user was not blocked or banned when EMG made the edits that are being crossed out. We do not redact edits that lead to a ban, only edits that are made in defiance of a ban. As EMG was not banned, under any username, when he made those edits they should be left alone. And for the record, EMG is still not banned. Future socks could have their edits reverted as being made in violation of the current block, but ones made prior to that should not be. nableezy - 13:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That's right, edits from the time before they were indeffed should not be retroactively reverted, redacted, struckthrough, or in anyway amended. El_C 00:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at List of LGBT Jews. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This should be handled on the talk page as I have already suggested. Also this is highly improper use of the warning template as there is no way in WP:GOODFAITH you could consider my reversion of your edit to be such. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

For WP:BLP issues the onus is on the person wishing to add the material to get consensus. For that matter, the same is true for WP:BRD. Your reverts were obvious violations of both. You're lucky you haven't been blocked already. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Your claim that PinkNews is not an appropriate reference is false and highly indicative of anti-gay bias. The information was always sourced to a WP:RS, even before you deleted it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I never stated that PinkNews is not an appropriate reference, and you had (and still have) 0 references indicating that the individual is Jewish. Also, if you ever again state or even imply that I have "anti-gay bias", this will immediately move off your Talk: page, and into Administrative action. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content” The “poorly referenced” is a link to Wikipedia:Reliable sources so yes you clearly claimed that PinkNews did not meet WP:RS. If not then please clarify why you used this template. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Uhhh, I'm pretty sure Jayjg has specified that the poorly referenced bit is about the person being Jewish. And he is, unsurprisingly, right, the PinkNews source says not one thing about the person being Jewish. nableezy - 19:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

You would have a point if “poorly referenced” wasn’t piped to WP:RS, but it is. The template was improperly used. I beg you to review [3] which provides important context for this edit. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That context being that Jayjg insists on reliable sources that explicitly back up all parts of adding a person to a list (here that they are both Jewish and LGBT)? Yeah, that isnt a bad thing. When something is removed as a BLP violation it stays out absent a consensus that it should be retained (WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE), and your edits here violate both that requirement and the requirement that material added have reliable sources backing them, as you, exactly as Jayjg says above, still dont have any source listed showing the person is Jewish but continue to add them to a List of LGBT Jews. nableezy - 19:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Well then I guess I’l add a citation that a well known (at least to my generation) Jewish figure is Jewish.. He’s well known enough that his coming out was covered by CNN [4] but it simply isn't seen as polite anymore to always have to “name the Jew” even in a positive sense. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, it's actually not good enough to merely Google the individual's name and "Jewish"; turns out you have to actually read the source too, to make sure it supports the claim. This source, for example, stated that Hoylman "had not formally converted to Judaism". So that would mean not Jewish. Maybe wait until he converts? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:04, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

It appears I made an error and thats on me, but why did you revert both? The other source is cleary relevant e.g. “Over and over when I had these meetings to try to get to know Republicans they’ll say to me, ‘Hey, you don’t have to worry about me. I’m cool. I’m a friend of Jeremy’s,’” Nessel said. “I never really know what they mean by that. Does that mean you’re cool with the gays, or cool or with the Jews or maybe, like, a little of both? I’m not exactly sure. But either way, Jeremy, thank you so much for being an ambassador on behalf of Democratic gay Jews everywhere.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Because the other link doesn't explicitly say Moss is Jewish; you really have to read between the lines to infer that Nessel is implying that. It doesn't seem that anyone is willing to find a straightforward, explicit source stating that Moss is Jewish. That's surprising, since finding these kinds of sources is apparently incredibly easy, and the only reason for not doing it is because editors are lazy. So, given WP:BLPREMOVE and all that, can you find that explicit source please? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow this is a higher level of rigor than I’ve ever seen demanded on wikipedia, I would hardly call extracting “gay and jewish” from that reading between the lines but I will respect your experience in the matter. In the interest of avoiding future conflict and making sure that the page List of LGBT Jews‎ is the fullest and most accurate reflection of its topic it can be which of the following would you consider (based on your knowledge of Wikipedia policy) to not require reading between the lines? Number one: “Moss says he is gay as well as a practicing Jew”[5]. Number two: “ Jeremy’s position as the only Jewish Michigander in the Senate”[6]. Number three: “Freshman Rep. Michele Hoitenga, R-Manton, has sparked the outrage of Metro Detroit Democratic Reps. Jeremy Moss, who is Jewish” [7]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The first and the third are the best, because they are explicit, and because the sources are more reliable. You should use them, and remove the "pridesource" citation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you for putting in the effort needed to reach consensus. I’l attempt to avoid falling afoul of your wrath (and WP:BLPREMOVE) in future edits to the page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Following the sourcing policies is helpful; they seem to be assisting you in your discussion/dispute with Johnbod below. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:46, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve Mari Stull

Hello, Horse Eye Jack,

Thanks for creating Mari Stull! I edit here too, under the username Chris troutman and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

It's not clear subject passes WP:GNG; please see WP:LOWPROFILE and WP:BLP1E

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Chris troutman}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Chris Troutman (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Chris, please take the time to read any of the feature pieces on the subject (the page hasn’t even existed long enough for you to have adequately reviewed the sources cited) and you will find that WP:GNG is well satisfied. I recommend this Foreign Policy *feature* piece [8]. I have a long history of creating pages for similar figures and I find that women are universally challenged so I made sure to vet this one well. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Stalking

Read this Harassment#Wikihounding, carefully, and reflect on this series of edits and how they will look when reported on an administrative board: [9], [10],[11],[12]. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikipedia:Harassment#hounding? Because if thats the one you mean it seems that everything is in order. If you don’t want your edits reverted don’t make disruptive edits, its as simple as that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

There was nothing disruptive about the edits you reverted. If you want to discuss them, there is a talk page for that. Following me around and undoing my edits with false claims of "disruption" is unwise. Rethink your actions. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Harassment#hounding, I have engaged you on no talk pages or discussions you are involved in. Every revert I made was policy based. Your disruptive editing came to my attentions when you made this [13] disruptive edit to Black Rifle Coffee Company. Care to answer why myself and so many other editors over the years have found your additions to be disruptive? You have quite the block record. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I've read it, perhaps you should , too: "hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no constructive reason.". Could you explain the policy based reason for removing a "dead link" tag I placed on a dead link? There was absolutely nothing disruptive about any of the edits you undid. Disagreeing with you, or with another another editor is not 'disruption'. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You either misunderstand or are willfully abusing wikipedia policy re “harassment"... "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information.” I have done none of these things, arguably you right now are the one closest to the definition of harassment. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

From the page you claim to have read: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." You've followed me around to series of unrelated articles, undoing my edits with spurious claims of "disruptiveness". In at least one case, you did so without any policy reason (e.g- removing a dead link tag I placed on a dead link). Thus is a direct violation of what I quoted to you. If you think this is not harassment, keep it up, and we'll soon test it with a report to an appropriate administrative board. Here come the Suns (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

At no point has it been my intention to irritate, annoy, or distress you. I continue to believe that your edits, including the ones you’ve made on this page, follow a generally disruptive pattern. I have strong reason to believe that you are WP:NOTHERE. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain the "generally disruptive pattern" you found in me placing a "dead link" tag on a dead link? Or the reason for you undoing that edit? Like I said, keep it up, and we'll soon test your theory about my behavior and yours with a report to an appropriate administrative board. Here come the Suns (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

"Like I said, keep it up, and we'll soon test your theory about my behavior and yours with a report to an appropriate administrative board.” Thats a threat btw (and the second time you’ve made it) in case you were wondering what actually breeches WP:harassment. Selective use of WP administrative remedies in an attempt to intimidate other users is against policy and is considered to be bad faith. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

You should really start reading much more carefully: "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats". Here come the Suns (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Could you explain how you found yourself at [[Talk:NumbersUSA}], a page you have never edited before, commenting on a discussion I am having and disagreeing with my position? Here come the Suns (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you should explain how you found yourself at NumbersUSA, Mountain gazelle, and List of supposed racist utterances in United States politics - all articles I edited first, and at which you magically appeared within a day or two to oppose or revert my edits, having never previously engaged in those articles at all. If you're going to self-righteously accuse other users of wikihounding, you probably shouldn't be doing it yourself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably the same way you found yourself on this talk page, NBSB, or at Talk:Image and Reality of the Israel–Palestine Conflict - all articles I edited first, and at which you magically appeared within a day or two to oppose my edits, having never previously engaged in those articles at all. The difference being, I didn't challenge any of your edits on at NumbersUSA or Mountain gazelle. Here come the Suns (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You will find that both American politics and 20th/21st century extremist groups are well within my editing wheelhouse. NorthBySouthBaranof has an excellent point, you should answer their question fully. Once again you need to look in the mirror, your conduct is by far the most questionable here. I also note that your understanding of Wikipedia policy has not improved since your last rant on my talk page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You

What a pita! You're reverting stuff that hasn't even been tagged, is referenced on the same page and elsewhere, & is very well known. Some of us like to add stuff here, but we seem to be outnumbered by those who just like to remove. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Please review, WP:PROVEIT. The page you are so keen to protect but not improve (Rothschild properties in the home counties) is a garbage fire, it has no fewer than six issues in the header and cites zero WP:RS. I would also note that as family members are currently living (and their properties featured here) WP:BLP applies to this page leaving absolutely no excuse to include the unsourced information. The entirety of the history section was tagged with a “citation needed” as the entire section had no citations. You can not possibly tell me that someone is just going to come through in the next few days and address “citation needed” tags from 2009... You certainly haven't in the last decade. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit - it is all very basic information, covered in the pages on each property, and the refs in the list bit. No garbage and the only fire is lit by you. The page is a glorified disam page & rather useful as such. Obviously YOU aren't going to ref it (or anything else I imagine) - that's not your job is it? Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Bullshit indeed Johnbod my boy. “Spain is a country in Europe” is very basic information, "By 1900, different branches and generations of the family owned thousands of acres, so the Vale of Aylesbury almost became a Rothschild enclave.” is incredibly specific and contentious information that needs to be sourced. There are literally zero WP:RS cited on the page, the only reliable source has zero inline citations directed to it. The pages on each property are also hosted on a website owned by the family in question, as such WP:SELFPUBLISH applies. Your claim that am the only one who finds fault with the page is false, I identified only one of the *six* issues with the page currently identified. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm guessing you've never been within a thousand miles of the Vale of Aylesbury. Wierdly, we have lots of articles claiming the Rothschilds owned large tracts of it. But you seem to be in enough trouble on this page already, so I'll leave you to it. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

No, you will leave it because you are in the wrong based on at least three core wikipedia policies and have realized the futility of arguing that something common knowledge to those who live in the Vale of Aylesbury is common knowledge on english wikipedia. Theres a reason you abandoned policy based argument for personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mar-A-Lago Crowd moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Mar-A-Lago Crowd, does not have enough sources and citations as written to show that this is a distinctive and standard term used to describe the group being discussed, I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I wasn’t really sure what you wanted because the article was already sourced to NYT, WSJ, etc but I’ve made the “distinctive and standard term” part absolutely obvious and submitted it for review. The only reputable source that appears to use “Mar-a-Lago Three” instead of “Mar-a-Lago Crowd” is Congress, but either way “Mar-a-Lago Three” is still referring to the same group. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Copper Hill Golf Club

Hello, Horse Eye Jack,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I’ve proposed an article that you started, Copper Hill Golf Club, for deletion because it meets one of the relevant criterion.The particular issue can be located in the notice, that is now-visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to prevent the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click Publish Changes button.

But, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the raised issues. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mar-a-Lago Crowd has been accepted

Mar-a-Lago Crowd, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 11:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Copper Hill Golf Club for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Copper Hill Golf Club is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper Hill Golf Club until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Ammar Campa-Najjar

Ammar Campa-Najjar

If you want to work on it, do it at Draft:Ammar Campa-Najjar, the deleted revision of the article from last year, which meets wiki policies in a way that what you are edit warring over doesn't. Nothing has changed since the AfD last year. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• See article talk page. The subject has received significant in-depth coverage since the last Afd as a simple google search can confirm. I also note that WP:GNG issues raised during the last Afd debate were never addressed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Mohamad Tawhidi - reverting my edit as vandalism

Hello Horse Eye Jack! I was removing what I believe is unencyclopedic content from a BLP article because who they are fans of is typically not relevant, even if it is sourced. Is there a particular reason you believe otherwise? Thanks! S0091 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi S0091! You appear to be mistaken, the notable event is the sliding into the DMs not the fandom. If it wasn’t notable it wouldn’t have been covered by the papers. In hindsight it appears to be a good faith edit and not vandalism, sorry for the knee jerk reaction but that page sees almost daily vandalism and on first sniff your edit smelled bad, really bad. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Believe me, I understand. Thank you for the explanation! S0091 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Reporting my Edits as Vandalism

Hello. I am unsure of why you have an issue with my verified facts on the page of Mari Stull & I am confused as to why you are reporting my edits as vandalism when they are clearly not. Also, what is your interest in Mari Stull? You seem to be very active on editing her page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAfactchecker (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Yup thats clearly vandalism... I note that ClueBot NG (very rarely wrong in identifying vandalism) was the first to revert your vandalism and another editor has since my reversion. Please make a post on Talk:Mari Stull if you believe that there is an error or policy violation in the article, you appear to have never edited Wikipedia before making edits to Mari Stull and to have edited no other pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Refusing to seek consensus is wrong on a community encyclopedia

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Debresser! I know you love escalating to talk pages but I am attempting to seek consensus over at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson and have been since before you posted this. Your participation is requested. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan vs ROC and China vs Mainland China naming dispute

You might also want to not undo edits without realising the rationale behind them. "Not improvements?" That doesn't seem like assuming good faith, does it? Mainland China as opposed to China when discussing ROC armed forces pages? The sentences make more grammatical sense, as the term "China" is in the official ROC name and to distinguish the two states like that certainly is an improvement. --Tærkast (Discuss) 11:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Your choice is simple - You can either choose to edit war (and see the three-revert rule) as as if you own articles to get your way or you can actually engage in dialogue and accept differing views aside from your own. --Tærkast (Discuss) 11:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Is this a new section or a continuation of Debresser’s section? If you’re referring to me reverting your changes of “Taiwan” to “Republic of China” and “China” to “Mainland China” I would remind you that the consensus is that we call these east asian nations Taiwan and China. These edits appear to make up a significant portion of your total edits and have for years, editing against consensus for years is the very definition of disruptive editing. Please cease such actions and respect consensus, I note (somewhat ironically) that you have been making the same change on specific pages for years so the idea that what I’m doing is either an edit war or ownership is laughable. Also did you threaten me with an edit war? If not you need to clarify what you mean by that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, no, I didn't threaten you with an edit war. I predicted you undoing my changes creating an edit war, which I have been proven right about. My changes were simply clarifying terms, using less controversial terms in relation to the names of the state. Yes, consensus is what the articles are titled, but common sense dictates it's occasionally necessary to qualify those terms by separating the two states. If you had actually read all the long proposals and naming conventions, you will realise there are times when the official terminology ought to be used, or qualifying statements. Don't misinterpret the article moves for the states as applying to every single article in relation to it. As for the national anthem article, the lead clearly already qualifies the "Republic of China" as commonly known as "Taiwan." So you wish to stalk me as well, and claim ownership over the articles? Go ahead and create an edit war. "China" and "ROC" in the same sentence doesn't make sense, so it is not disruptive to clarify it. You're definitely not assuming good faith, which you may wish to do.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You are free to risk violating the three revert rule and insisting on undoing my changes, therefore risking both of us getting blocked, since your "my way or the highway" approach will definitely lead to blocking on both of our parts. It's up to you.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:32, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

You are cherrypicking one example from many. Still looking for an answer as to whether you intend for this to be a standalone section or a continuation of Debresser’s section. I note that you both claim "no, I didn't threaten you with an edit war” and that "You are free to risk violating the three revert rule and insisting on undoing my changes, therefore risking both of us getting blocked, since your "my way or the highway" approach will definitely lead to blocking on both of our parts.” which does appear to be some sort of threat given that we aren't even near 3RR yet. I have never been blocked and don’t intend to be, your cavalier disregard for the rules of wikipedia is just plain odd. Why in the world would this be worth a block over? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, you are incorrect when you state changes of “Taiwan” to “Republic of China” and “China” to “Mainland China” I would remind you that the consensus is that we call these east asian nations Taiwan and China. WP:AT applies only to article titles, and not article text. The trope These edits appear to make up a significant portion of your total edits and have for years is an irrelevant attempt to poison the well, let alone numerically inaccurate. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 03:58, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi CaradhrasAiguo, welcome to my talk page. May I ask what brings you here? It appears you have no quarrel with me and joining into discussions on random user talk pages is generally frowned upon. As for the accuracy of my claim to user TaerkastUA waging a comprehensive slow edit war all one needs do is review the three pages under contention here [14] (seven edits from December 2012 to September 2019, all removing some reference to Taiwan) [15] (six edits from September 2012 to September 2019, all removing some reference to Taiwan), and [16] (eight edits from July 2017 to September 2019, all removing some reference to Taiwan). I also note that earlier this month user TaerkastUA was rebuked by an administrator for a “Slow edit war” per User talk:TaerkastUA/Archives/2019/September. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo and Horse Eye Jack: Although I do like and appreciate many of the edits CaradhrasAiguo makes on Wikipedia, CaradhrasAiguo joined into discussions on my user talk page and attempted to portray me in a negative light about a month ago. I made a formal person to person request that the user not edit on my talk page again- you may want to do the same if it seems necessary to you. Again, I'm glad CaradhrasAiguo is here so we can get his perspective on things, and I mean no offense to the user personally. The user's criticism of me was probably 100% valid, but I just didn't appreciate getting more negative comments piled on. Good luck to all, no offense meant to anybody. The point of Wikipedia is to make an encylopedia, not engage in endless disputation. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Their talk page didn't look like much but it appears to have been selectively edited to appear that way, their archive is a horror story [17] and they appear to engage in the same serial reversion of Taiwan to ROC as user TaerkastUA. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

joining into discussions on random user talk pages is generally frowned upon Nope, completely made up, and the "slow edit war", that you mentioned TaerkastUA was warned over, has nothing to do with Greater China and is yet another ad hominem (not to mention the absurd, evidence-free contention that I somehow "selectively edit" my user talk) irrelevant to the inherent 'discussion' on naming. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 13:40, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Buddy... You’re on record as saying this about those who believe that Taiwan and China are separate countries "Only the most militant, Sinophobic, pan-Green partisans and their neocon sympathisers in the West would differ but their opinion should be considered both criminal and extreme.” per Talk:List of Chinese administrative divisions by highest point. Come on, you can't post that kind of derogatory speech and then pretend to be a reasonable, neutral, and uninvolved editor elsewhere. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

And my own personal assessment (of opinions, not editors) affirming international law is relevant how? Enough with the deflections, you have long in effect conceded you are the only bad-faith editor here in this subject. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:25, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you expand on what you mean by affirming international law? Because it doesnt appear to, especially as you are suggesting that it is criminal for those outside of China to believe that Taiwan is an independent nation... I would note that your criticism is of "militant, Sinophobic, pan-Green partisans and their neocon sympathisers” while your claim of "criminal and extreme” is a critique of their opinion. I also believe you mean deep green not pan-Green. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply I have no reason to hide, you are free to stalk my archives and assume bad faith all you want. You still refuse to discuss it, instead insisting that my edits are not improvements or disruptive. My edits were in good faith with making grammatical and distinguishing sense. You are write about one thing, however, this is certainly not worth getting blocked over, and I see not fit to engage with a user whose ability to assume good faith regarding edits fails. Have a good day.--Tærkast (Discuss) 16:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

For housekeeping purposes can you at least answer question #1 "Is this a new section or a continuation of Debresser’s section?” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Initially a continuation of Debresser's section, but you can separate it out. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:16, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. See you around. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2019 (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) 13:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Baseless reporting such as this is an abuse of wikipedia. I note that no violation was found nor was enough evidence even presented for a violation to possibly be found. You appear to use the Administrators’ noticeboard for your own personal purposes, be careful as its not possible to abuse the system forever. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Molly Kelly

Wikipedia clearly and unequivocally provided a notification at the top citing that that page clearly looks like it was a campaign page and promotional. It is need I’m Revision. YOU DIDNT REVISE ANYTHING. You simply put back everything that Wikipedia said they didn’t want. Zzannoni1956 (talk) 03:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Zzannoni1956, generally when editing we avoid removing sources as you did. The page does need a significant amount of work, but I dont feel that your edits were constructive. Perhaps it just needed to be done more elegantly, you appear to be an inexperienced wikipedia editor and I dont mean to suggest that you did anything untoward. You should be aware that those notifications are user added and are not added by Wikipedia. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for defending me at Talk:KAI T-50 Golden Eagle. I finally figured out that volunteers don't get paid enough to endure abuse like that for years on end. I was actually considering unretiring, but now I remember why I retired in the first place. Thanks for stepping in. - BilCat (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ammar Campa-Najjar (October 10)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Bearcat was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won. This was true in 2018, when he had to be taken to AFD twice because his partisan supporters didn't accept the consensus of the first discussion, and it is still true today: he will have to win the congressional election in November 2020 to qualify for an article, and does not get one just for being a candidate.

Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Horse Eye Jack! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

user:bearcat thats absolute twaddle, if WP:GNG is met (and it clearly is met here) a rejection on the basis of WP:NPOL has absolutely no standing. Your claim that a candidate has to win their election in order to pass WP:GNG is disingenuous at best and has absolutely no basis in wikipedia policy. Please observe WP:civility especially in comments, calling fellow wikipedia editors “his partisan supports” is uncalled for especially when you don't know enough about their real lives to ever establish that fact. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The existence of some campaign coverage does not automatically hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL — every candidate in every election always gets campaign coverage, so if that were how it worked then every candidate in every election would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, and NPOL would inherently never apply to anybody at all anymore. So we most certainly do have a long-established consensus that candidates cannot claim GNG just because some campaign coverage exists: to actually get a candidate over GNG in lieu of having to pass NPOL, what you have to show is that he would already have cleared GNG for some other reason that would already have gotten him an article before he was ever a candidate for anything, and the existence of campaign coverage does not change the equation all by itself. I'm not wrong about how demonstrating the notability of politicians works. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

user:bearcat do you deny that this piece as currently written would pass an AfD? I note that it would have taken you nearly two hours to review the sources added since the 2018 AfD, I put in more than ten hours of work improving this page... Did you really fully review the sources and afterwards really still come to the conclusion that the subject is not notable? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2019 (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! Theroadislong (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Harassment

You will do well to stop harassing me, especially as not in a situation where you ultimately embarass yourself by being on the wrong side of policy. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aiguo, I’m going to ask you to stop commenting on my talk page, if you want to continue this discussion please ping me on your own talk page. I also note that the admistrative result was "No action” and I was on the *right* side of policy (e.g. there was no edit war and your claim was unsubstantiated). I also note hat you have a history of using administrative noticeboards to harass others. Again I note that the only person here whose behavior meets the standards of WP:harrassment is CaradhrasAiguo (talk · contribs). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It sucks that you had to endure most of this crazy maniac's wrath, but I just wanted to let you know that most Wikipedia editors are not as unhinged as this one or I would have given up on this a long time ago. I hope you are not overly disillusioned with Aiguo's (terrible) 50-cent-esque actions - I would just dismiss them as the ramblings of a seriously unwell human being who deserves pity more than scorn. Yes, pity, because they are not worthy of anything else. (Also feel free to delete this if you feel it does not help, and thanks again.) Yny501 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)