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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Warning

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

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

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

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

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

Discretionary sanctions notice

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

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

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

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

January 2020

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

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

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

MOS discretionary sanctions alert

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

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

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

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

Talk page

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

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

Your misunderstanding of NPOV policy

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

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

and Psychological projection,

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

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

@Akira CA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Failing to understand NPOV is not misbehavior... It describes every single editor at some point in their editing careers. As for the armchair psychiatry the relevant diff is [1], but again while it may violate WP:CIVIL it is not in and of itself misbehavior. I’m glad you’ve learned that serious accusations require serious evidence, but you learned that particular bit of Wikipedia knowledge from swarm[2] and myself just recently. I noticed you didn’t acknowledge the point that you mistook an image for text. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

Again, not an accusation or disparagement so not a violation of WP:NPA in any way. Just a selection of the relevant diffs are [3][4][5][6] I can find more if you want. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

I haven't accused you “for” anything so yes I would appear to be more proficient in the English language than you. Being a native level speaker of a language isn’t required for editing the wiki in that language btw, but it is generally frowned upon to introduce broken english into the MOS if thats what you’re referring to. Also if what I did was a personal attack and violated WP:NPA what do you call the header you put on this section? I provided my diffs re NPOV, now lets see yours. I might as well just throw another one in there [7] which includes this doozy in which you claim that the MOS violates NPOV which is just silly "excluding Taiwan completely from China, not merely the People's Republic of China, is a violation of WP:NPOV.” Longstanding consensus on EN wikipedia is China means China if the context is contemporary, just because you disagree with that longstanding consensus doesn't mean it violates NPOV. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

If some native speaker don't know what "accuse" means they still should look it up in the dictionary [8]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi CaradhrasAiguo now that you’re back on my talk page provide diffs for the warning you posted[9] here and then refused to explain. As was explained to you before you do have to provide evidence when challenged over a warning. You explained it away when challenged by another editor by insisting they provide an email for you to send diffs to with "I did not want to mention the specific diff on HEJ's talk because I know that, short of (the credible threat of) sanctions, he will not alter course and it would do nothing but to "keep the hornet's momentum going" (a la the adage "stir the hornet's nest”).” your stated reasoning rings hollow now that you're back on my page stirring the hornets nest as you put it. So provide diffs, now. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Please stop editing my comment

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

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

Actually now that I review the page's edit history you made the edit [10] not either PE Fans or myself. WTF? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Dude you seems completely unaware what's happening there, that's a quote box and what I added [11] is a quote of PE Fans from ANI. Even what PE Fans added later [12] is still his own quote from ANI. But what you add is not a quote. I need to sign at the end because the quote box is still a part of my comment (and can't violate WP:TALKO myself). That's also not a part of the conversation so you cannot comment within it, it's a quote and the text is in the {{cquote}} template buddy. -- Akira😼CA 23:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

NPOL vs GNG

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

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

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

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

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

December 2019

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

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

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

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

Hi Jack

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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

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