Horse Eye's Back

Archives (Index)

2020/September 2020/October 2020/November 2020/December 2021/January 2021/February 2021/March 2021/April 2021/May 2021/June 2021/July 2021/August 2021/September 2021/October 2021/November 2021/December 2022/January 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/May 2022/June 2022/July 2022/August 2022/September 2022/October 2022/November 2022/December 2023/January 2023/February 2023/March 2023/April 2023/May 2023/June 2023/July 2023/September 2023/October 2023/November 2023/December 2024/January 2024/February 2024/March

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

AAAroads

I'm pretty sure this is yet another sock of BKFIP. Considering you've been a critic of AARoads Wiki, I wouldn't put it past them to troll you that way. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Very likely, but who knows with these things when there are so few edits and so many idiots (and very smart dogs) on the internet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So is that why you're tagging multiple road-related articles as failing GNG, even road lists? -------User:DanTD (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@DanTD: Nothing at all to do with it. I was tagging road-related articles before the harassment started, lists must also meet notability requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Refactor

Hey, if you want to start another thread about me at AN/I you can do it the normal way. Please don't refactor my comment to make it look like I started a thread about myself. [1] And if you do start another thread, please notify me, as I don't have AN/I on my watchlist. ~Awilley (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Not a new thread and the old one was already about you, I did not refactor your comment. I gave it a header because its placement under a the header for another discussion was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment

I don't want to continue the disucssion on the talk page because there's already enough wall of text there. I'm not trying to suggest matters are simple, rather I have been concerned with the "walled garden" and the drive by comments from some that this is all very complex and "grey". What we attribute the cause of the present case to (is it religious alignment vs financial ... or the interplay of the two) is less significant to me right now than an outcome which clearly demonstrates that policy and guidelines were systematically undermined breached. Our approaches might be different, but I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

AfC

Out of an abundance of caution, I'm asking for a clarification of your comment here: "Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC."

What do you mean by that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Thats a little vague, can you maybe start with what you are confused by? The first sentence answers "Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born," and the second answers "then do please explain that." The third sentence is a response to "No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as Stretch Armstrong (ska band) and List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center and Anarchism and Esperanto and Hidden Figures (picture book) through AFC." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the last sentence, so have stricken the first two. As far as I know, there is no requirement that new articles go through the AfC process. Editors are volunteers who may use their own user space to create articles and directly add them to the encyclopedia. It seems you might be in conflict with that idea. That's why I ask. Maybe I have misunderstood you. I have written a number of articles and never used the AfC process. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: This feels like deja vu... I didn't say that there was a requirement that new articles go through the AfC process, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. This isn't my opinion, this is a pretty literal summary of what it gives at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as instructions for editors with COI: "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense for a COI editor. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that advice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree its good advice, I have yet to see a COI editor who does everything they "should" per WP:COI who has gotten into trouble. The trouble comes when people wade into the grey area of "well we shouldn't... But we can" because the community isn't going to forgive mistakes that are made when people are doing something they shouldn't be doing in the same way they do mistakes that are made when people are doing what they should be doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point. We tend to forgive human frailty, but don't let foolishness pass without mention. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? 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/Where is Kate? (3rd 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 until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hope you enjoy this goat!

Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

New legal article

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I will keep it in mind for future work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

You were mentioned in a Dot Dot News opinion article back in 2022

In case you weren't aware of it, I found an opinion article from 2022 from the Hong Kong news outlet Dot Dot News that mentioned you: https://english.dotdotnews.com/a/202202/23/AP6215e7f6e4b0482c7bbc32b7.html

“ There are of course, other users who are part of this manipulative editing circle. Another, who goes back the name "Horsed Eyed Jack" or now known as "Horse Eye's back" appears to be a supporter of Taiwan, and similarly engages in extremely aggressive behaviour towards editors he deems to defy his agenda. What both users have in common is their ability to wage war using the Wikipedia rules and cement themselves as the "status quo". In June 2021, the site as a whole then (at Horse Eye's lobbying) implemented a "general sanctions regime" of which allows administrators to more readily ban people who attempt to challenge the Xinjiang narrative as presented. ”

Félix An (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

@Félix An: Don't know if I'd seen that one specifically but yes in general was aware of Fowdy, they're ex-wiki with an axe to grind... Banned for doxxing I believe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Citrus taiwanica

It looks like Citrus taiwanica is a synonym of Citrus × aurantium, the bitter orange. Usually I or another editor would simply redirect the article to the accepted name without comment. But Citrus is a popular genus so I thought I would ask you first; is there any reason to believe the Citrus × taiwanica is a legit taxon? Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Abductive: That seems backwards... You never presented any reason to believe that its a synonym. Citrus is in general very contentious when it comes to synonyms, you will for example find people who say that Citrus x paradisi and Citrus × aurantium are synonyms... Same with Citrus × sinensis and Citrus × aurantium, yet we have separate pages for Bitter Orange, Sweet Orange, and Grapefruit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The consensus at WP:Wikiproject Plants is to use the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew website Plants of the World Online to determine if a flowering plant taxon is accepted. The POWO entry for Citrus taiwanica says it's a synonym for Citrus × aurantium f. aurantium. Abductive (reasoning) 23:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Such a consensus has absolutely no bearing on notability etc. Plants is but one of the relevant wikiprojects, it has no more say than any of the others. Thats what I think you're missing... Even if its a variety its a notable one, so it gets a page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Going forward it would be best if you checked POWO if a taxon is accepted before creating an article, and to refrain from creating it if is not. Abductive (reasoning) 01:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Why? Whether a taxon is accepted or not has no bearing on notability unless there is something I don't understand. The most we would be talking about here is creating the page under a different name with slightly different formatting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)