User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/June

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 [[1]]. 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 [2], 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...”

Where did you find such words? I do not think I have ever said i promoted NTDTV. 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.

I have confidence my edits were made while sticking to Wiki rules and under good faith. Again, I have never been and am not paid by anyone to make edits in Wikipedia. Precious Stone 21:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Marvin 2009: Don’t post on my talk page again, this is becoming disruptive. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I note the following:

• You came onto an article where there has been a degree of edit-warring by two editors, and you joined in the edit-war
• You warned me about edit-warring
• You failed to notify the other editor for the edit-warring
• The other editor breached 3RR a few days ago but I have refrained from reporting the matter

To this end I find your message to be sardonic, and your behaviour disruptive. Would you like to revert yourself and issue the identical warning to the other editor? Or do you feel that it is not edit-warring when it is him, and if not, why not? --Coldtrack (talk) 19:31, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

As you say that edit warring occurred days ago and yours was current, its not my job to patrol the page history. I restored properly sourced information to the page, as far as I can tell you had never actually challenged the source but since neither of you opened a talk page discussion its hard to tell. Just FYI your edits to that page appear to constitute vandalism, I would tread carefully... Especially around Nazi related pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Also for what its worth I’ve found Buidhe’s judgement when it comes to Nazi related articles to be excellent, they are not a person I would edit war with in that subject area. Just a reminder, reverting vandalism is not constrained by 3rr etc. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain the "vandalism" to me? --Coldtrack (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

You added shit tier sources to support fringe POVs [3] and removed WP:RS which didn’t support the POV you’re pushing. Also thats the last post I’d like you to make on my talk page (tldr you’re banned), if you would like to continue the conversation on your talk page give me a ping. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

June 2020

Hello, I'm Thanoscar21. I noticed that you recently removed content from Pineapple cake without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

It was part of a series of edits... I see you didn’t look at the edit history for even one second... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Also wait what? Looking back it was in fact adequately explained by edit summaries in *all edits* WTF bro? And you used rollback? This is the sort of shit that leads to one losing rollback privileges. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for a coffee break or something? Your comments here, and at Thanoscar21's talk, and in the edit summary] at Pineapple cake seem kind of over-the-top; basically, you sound outraged and hostile, over something that isn't that big of a deal and is easily fixed with a bit of calm conversation. We all get reverted at one time or another, and sometimes it's a mistake that is easy to clear up...no need to make it a major conflict. Schazjmd (talk) 00:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

There were actually three mistakes here... They didn't even manage to revert the edit they meant to revert. People incompetently using powerful tools like RedWarn does in fact outrage me, if they cant handle that level of responsibility they shouldn’t have it in the first place. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

Just a head up that I'm not fond of wikihounding, and that is how I'm inclined to interpret your contributions on Why Liberalism Failed and The Age of Entitlement. Unless you have a history of editing articles about works by Straussian academics, I'm going to conclude that you've followed me to these pages. See WP:Harassment:

"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."

Maybe your intentions are benign, which is why I'm letting you know how I'm interpreting your behaviour.TheBlueCanoe 00:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you look you will find I have a long history of editing pages connected to American Politics as well as political theory. You are right though that I did follow someone to those pages, but it wasn’t you... it was JzG. I certainly didn’t hound them though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hounding

Just a head up that I'm not fond of wikihounding, and that is how I'm inclined to interpret your contributions on Why Liberalism Failed and The Age of Entitlement. Unless you have a history of editing articles about works by Straussian academics, I'm going to conclude that you've followed me to these pages. See WP:Harassment:

"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."

Maybe your intentions are benign, which is why I'm letting you know how I'm interpreting your behaviour.TheBlueCanoe 00:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

If you look you will find I have a long history of editing pages connected to American Politics as well as political theory. You are right though that I did follow someone to those pages, but it wasn’t you... it was JzG. I certainly didn’t hound them though. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:51, 21 June 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)

TAR

If you had checked the diff, you would have seen that the allegations of torture, extrajudicial executions, forced abortions / sterilizations are also present in the material I incorporated from Human rights in Tibet. You are essentially bickering / reverting for the sake of it, for which you have been previously warned against, on multiple occasions. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You are allowed to place legitimate warning/notification templates on my talk page but nothing more, thats been made clear to you by multiple admins. I’ve respected the rules with you and I expect you to respect them with me. The next non-template post you make on this page will be escalated as far up the food chain as it needs to go. PS this also counts as your 3RR warning at TAR, it would have been well within my rights to post a 3RR warning on your page but I decided not to. If only you had done the same with your post here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)