Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClueBot III (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 19 September 2020 (Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Horse Eye Jack/Archives/2020/June. (BOT)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (Index)

2019/December 2020/January 2020/February 2020/March 2020/April 2020/May 2020/June 2020/July 2020/August 2020/September 2020/November 2020/December 2022/February 2022/March 2022/April 2022/October 2023/November

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Horse_Eye_Jack reported by User:Augend (Result: ). Thank you. Augend (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reaction

I have also found Horse_Eye_Jack is an expert on WP who knows exactly how to stop improvements to Misplaced Pages articles by citation removal. My NPV work deleted by Horse_Eye_Jack removing dates on citation links. Please also see the aggressive attitude that accompanied this edit and removal. boul22435 (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2020 (PST)

Reaction

I have been reading this page because I am a little bored during the wuhan virus lockdown.

It is very depressing to read some parts of it especially those parts where somebody called CA is mentioned.

In fact it is enough to put anyone off editing wikipedia for life.

I admire your tenacity and knowledge about WP but so sad to see the editing wars, frustration and venom (well disguised of course) so prevalent on WP which seems to be mainly caused by people throwing rule books at each other.

Now I understand why the logo for WP is a broken jigsaw puzzle, obviously someone squashed it with a WP rule book in an infantile rage and this is what's left.

Hope you don't mind my comment on your talk page, would you prefer I put it on my own talk page, not sure if I will be here for long.

source: Billybostickson (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_New_York_Times_controversies&type=revision&diff=968647336&oldid=968602151 source:myself
2. me, myself and I and I

Your GA nomination of Lisa Wilson-Foley

The article Lisa Wilson-Foley you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Lisa Wilson-Foley for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barrettsprivateers -- Barrettsprivateers (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

June 2020

Horse Eye Jack (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m sorry, it wasn’t my intent to harass CA and I thought I was staying within the lines so to speak. Obviously that wasn’t the case and I need to reconsider how I interact with this editor if I even interact with them at all. The feuding has also not exactly been constant, its been maybe once or twice a week but it has gone on for way too long. I definitely accept the validity of the block (I have no reason to doubt that Floquenbeam made the right call), the only thing I want to ask about is the length. Two weeks seems excessive, this is my first block and I’m not causing any disruption to any user other than CA and that disruption I regret causing and it won’t happen again. Any guidance or advice for how to avoid this situation in the future would also be appreciated, thank you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocking per discussion below, with an I-ban with CA until 9 July 2020 (and a warning to be careful not to resume feud after that) Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: What do you think about dropping the block to three days for both, and instead throwing in a 2-way WP:IBAN? CaptainEek ⚓ 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: First, I'm not precious about my blocks. If you think it's too harsh, feel free to modify, even if I disagree below. No need to go to AN/ANI, really, whatever you think best. Second, since you're asking my opinion, my inclination is that it needs to be long enough to actually be an inconvenience, rather than be something easily removed with an "oh, sorry". Not as a punishment, but as a deterrent. They've been doing this for, what, months? And been told several times to knock it off, because it was making everyone else miserable too. They did not care. Third, since (crazily) admins can block someone indef, but can't unilaterally impose an iban, if you want to go with the "shorten plus iban" route, your suggestion will need careful management. An iban can be imposed as an unblock condition, but it only works here if it's two-way, so I think you'd need to make sure both agreed to it as a condition for an unblock if you want to go that route. Finally, you could get a community iban at AN/ANI, but I am not a fan of that venue. If you're less jaded about it than I am, that's certainly a justifiable place to get a less complicated iban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a point of order... Both of us modified our behavior following your informal warning in April and have had hardly any contact since (at least compared to how much we had before). I don’t think its fair to say we didn’t care. I would be amenable to an iban, I’ve never had this sort of issue with another editor and don’t intend to have it with another. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@CaptainEek and Floquenbeam: Both editors work on a wide breadth of China & Taiwan related articles, including the heavily-edited articles with disputes (e.g. Xinjiang re-education camps, Anti-Chinese sentiment, COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China), and they independently contribute productively to this body of articles. An IBAN would be a difficult and unproductive use of time to enforce across these articles. It would also artificially halve their access to edit articles that they already edit.I’ve seen countless disagreements between the two. Article-wise, they usually get resolved. It’s just the follow-up conduct accusations on the article talk pages and user talk pages that gets out of hand. An IBAN would resolve the latter issue but may be more trouble and have more productivity collateral damage than it’s worth. Hopefully the editors can further tone down their hostility towards each other and figure out how to coexist on these articles. — MarkH₂₁ 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21:, thanks for that context. It is helpful to get outside confirmation that they both do individually contribute productively in the subject area, and I agree that means that topic bans would be a last option. I also agree about ibans generally causing trouble and damage, particularly when the two editors dislike each other so much that the odds are good that they will try to taunt each other into violating it. But I can't think of anything that solves the problem but doesn't cause trouble and damage. (Besides, obviously, both of them agreeing to tone things down and both of them agreeing to try to coexist, but history seems to show they can't do that.) Any ideas? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: Given that this is the first mutual block for their feud, it’s possible that this is already the new action that can enact productive changes. In this case, topic & interaction bans are more severe sanctions for the two editors & the community than a short-term block.

Ideally we can leave the situation here if both editors demonstrate a willingness to civilly coexist on their shared interests. If they’re back on this in the future, then we should look at T/I bans. — MarkH₂₁ 23:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Yeah, the "do nothing more" option is to leave them blocked for 2 weeks, hope that this is sufficient, and discuss tbans or ibans if it continues. If they want to return sooner, I've had another look at WP:IBAN again, and I think, while annoying, it won't seriously limit their ability to edit in a common topic area. A tban in this case seems the last resort. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam: For whats its worth we almost came to an agreement to stay off each other’s talk pages (thats where 90%+ of the acrimony has occurred historically) but in the end CA walked away from our agreement after securing the unrelated concessions they had desired. This can be reviewed at User talk:Horse Eye Jack#WP:TPG. In good faith I gave them everything they had asked for in return for staying off each other’s talk pages, they abandoned the discussion after getting what they wanted and resumed posting on my talk page only three days later. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) etc, @Floquenbeam: I request that User:FormalDude lay off with the templated warnings when HEJ is already blocked? Whether justified or not, they can't be much more than less than helpful. ——Serial 07:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

I am slowly coming around to the opinion that we should ban all templated warnings from anyone to anyone all the time forever. But since I'm currently in the minority on that, and templated warnings are so extremely common, I don't see any particular problem with those warnings. Horse Eye Jack seem to be a grown up who can manage his own talk page. I realize there's non-zero chance these are being used to antagonize rather than communicate, but that's true of ... what would you say, 90%? ... of all templated warnings (not counting the blizzard of legit vandalism warnings, which are also basically useless, just in a different way). --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Only 90%? You're not as jaded as you seem :) ——Serial 17:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

another (talk page watcher): HEJ is only blocked for 2 weeks. If an editor wants to communicate concerns about something HEJ has said or done on an article not related to the current block, they should be able to do so without being repeatedly reverted. Schazjmd (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: "Incredibly pointless" just about sums it up. All the best! ——Serial 14:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: First off I want to thank you for removing what you perceived to be a disruptive warning template placed here. I appreciate it but in general my personal policy is not to remove anything from my talk page with very very few exceptions. I want it to be as open and complete a record as possible and I hope you won’t take offense or see this as a repudiation of your edits but I’m going to restore the warning template placed by FormalDude. Thank you again. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

No problem at all, Horse Eye: the important point, I felt, was not so much whether you were an adult enough to manage your page (!!!) but the fact that FormalDude needed to know that there was a time and a place for such warnings, and that this was neither. Best of luck sorting out your current irritating circumstance, though  :) ——Serial 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think that I-Ban is going to solve the problem given Horse Eye Jack was only reverting the problematic edits by CaradhrasAiguo. Instead, I think that it would help if both users are unblocked for ANI discussion where we can discuss who deserves a topic ban from editing anything about China. Siddsg (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I really don’t think that the amount of additional drama and potential hostility that an ANI discussion would place on both editors and the community would be worth it. Both editors almost always disagree on articles related to China, but I don’t think that either have done anything to merit a topic ban. — MarkH₂₁ 18:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: a question, while I’m blocked can I address other concerns raised on my talk page like the warning discussed above? I was under the impression that I am to stick to addressing the block and nothing more but as this is my first time ever being blocked I’m still feeling my way around. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  While there is a "don't use talk page for anything except getting unblocked" school of thought, I don't subscribe to it. Generally, as long as you're not continuing the behavior that led to the block, and generally not breaking other rules, I'm not concerned with what goes on here. I can't stop another admin from wading in to disagree, but I kind of doubt that's going to happen. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

  Gotcha, I’l keep it brief and uncontroversial. My intent is only to restore the warning template and explain why, not contest and get into a discussion over it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Way forward

HEJ, since (a) you have indicated a willingness to abide by an interaction ban, and (b) CA has taken a break and hasn't responded, and (c) if one of you just waits out the block, they won't be subject to an IBAN, and (4) I need to treat you both equally, and (5) it sounds like you guys are both productive editors when not interacting with each other, and (6) I don't want to be the go-to HEJ/CA mediator/babysitter/fairy godmother for all time, and want to go offline for the weekend soon, I propose the following:

• I unblock you, subject to an interaction ban from CA, outlined here, that will last until 8 July (when this block would have expired), whether or not CA requests an unblock.
• If CA wants to be unblocked, I'll give them the same offer.
• At the end of the two week period, when both are unblocked (either by request or waiting it out), you won't be subject to an IBAN. However, I really suggest you both act as if you are, because if things start back up, I won't do anything myself, I'll file a report at ANI. As you may or may not have experienced, ANI is a crapshoot, and could very well end in (a) wrist slaps, or (b) indef blocks or (c) anything in between.
• I you actually want an official IBAN, and CA actually wants an IBAN - which I think may actually be the case - I think I can unilaterally impose one without accusations of violating some policy somewhere.

So, first, do you agree to this condition for unblock? And second, do you want an indef mutual IBAN if CA does too? --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

That works for me, even without a formal IBAN post 8 July I don’t see there being much of an issue going forward as its now clear that posting on each other’s talk pages and bringing each other to noticeboards are bright lines. Without those forums 90% of the problems go away. TBH I’ve know for a long time that the dispute with CA was way out of hand (I have a word document on my computer with six pages of CA’s most disruptive edits in diff form with brief summaries, largely unrelated to me, in case I ever needed a WMD so to speak. This is not something I have for any other editor.) but had no idea how to deescalate it. I had assumed they would take me to ANI at some point and I would need an ironclad argument for a boomerang, its kind of nice to know that fear won’t be hanging over my head going forward. On a side note I almost made it to two years without a block, I think my two year anniversary is today. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks against other Misplaced Pages editors

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Misplaced Pages aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on Talk:Herriman_High_School#Newspaper_controversy, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing.

Your comments to User:ClemRutter seem to be in violation of WP:PERSONALATTACKS. As a matter of polite and effective discourse, arguments should not be personalized; that is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people (WP:AVOIDYOU). —FORMALDUDE 05:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit WarringPompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I note you have been edit warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/Adrian_Zenz.

Please cease as per WP:3RR

I note you have a history of receiving similar warnings for disruptive edits as per June 11th PompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@PompeyTheGreat: per WP:ASPERSIONS please provide diffs of the claimed edit warring. Now this wouldn’t be retaliation for putting a 3RR warning on your page? Would it? Because I can assure you I haven't made three reverts on that page, nowhere close. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Here is a list of reversions you made on that article

00:02, 1 July 2020‎ Horse Eye Jack talk contribs‎  5,351 bytes -284‎  Remove bad source from a BLP undothank

curprev 00:01, 1 July 2020‎ Horse Eye Jack talk contribs‎ 5,635 bytes -501‎ Undid revision 965373338 by PompeyTheGreat (talk) Wait until the talk page discussion is completed. undothank Tag: Undo curprev 21:12, 29 June 2020‎ Horse Eye Jack talk contribs‎ m 4,061 bytes -3‎ →‎Personal life: spacing undothank curprev 21:11, 29 June 2020‎ Horse Eye Jack talk contribs‎ 4,064 bytes -287‎ Un

As per WP:3RR "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring", and you have made 4 reversions in a 27 hour period. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Diffs my good man diffs! BTW those revisions aren’t related to each other. I’m not sure you understand what the policy is here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Also isn't a revert so even by your convoluted logic theres nothing here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction of falsehood

Please stop knowingly introducing a falsehood into wikipedia. You did it twice to this article. The first time reflected here. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sergeants_Benevolent_Association&diff=965347161&oldid=965334705 --2604:2000:E010:1100:40AE:9CCC:FC6E:4A6C (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Lord above they’re functionally equivalent statements... Thats one edit btw, what do you mean twice? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You keep on introducing a falsehood into a blp. Repeatedly. That is not good. Your falsehood relates to why the living person was arrested. Those two statements are not equivalent functionally. I would think that obvious. Protesting - without more - is not illegal. Illegal assembly and blocking traffic and refusing to move when asked to do so by authorities is. Surely you get this. 2604:2000:E010:1100:B984:6CB9:D3C5:2BE1 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

So now you say I’ve introduced three falsehoods? Per WP:ASPERSIONS I’m gonna need at least three diffs, I only see one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Are you playing games? You somehow believe that collegial? See your last edits here. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sergeants_Benevolent_Association&action=history 2604:2000:E010:1100:E12E:690D:FF95:7477 (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thats two, now we need the third. What the heck could you possibly be talking about? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Michael306

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that Michael306 removed your edit warring notice from the administrators' noticeboard. I'm not sure whether I'd be right to revert him, so I thought I'd tell you. Doanri (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Update - he's blocked. Doanri (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Manmade cave cats

Hello, I've recently reverted a few of your manmade category additions you've applied to natural cave or cave phenomena, in addition to at least one other fellow doing the same. Be sure to double check the article before you add a manmade category to make sure it isn't of a natural feature. This is especially important as you progress into more specialized articles that discuss particular caves. Some caves are artificial, but the vast majority are not. It would behoove you to spend just a bit of time at each article to determine which type of cave or feature it is you are editing. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

@Leitmotiv: You are mistaken, those are categorized as man-related. The template refers to them as natural features. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you go into detail what "man-related" means in this regard? It seems rather vague and all encompassing. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It means used by man, as in humanity not just the male of our species. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, you're going to find a strong opposition to the inclusion of the man-made cat to anything naturally made, from the wikipedians who follow cave-related articles. It's an oxymoron to say the least. As for man-related, it's not a precise definition, where you could pretty much include anything by circumstance and that's not useful to your organization of the category. It's very vague. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is attaching that cat to anything naturally made. Its a combined navigation template for Man-made and man-related Subterranea. Also again this is a Misplaced Pages:Navigation template not a WP:CAT. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake. However, the title of your navigation template is still all inclusive. The latter half of your title is so vague, that reviewing the items included there, it would appear that a better title is "Man-made or naturally-occurring subterranea", because that's exactly what's included. As it appears now, it looks like a sneaky workaround that, at first glance, is misleading. To say the least. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

So you aren’t convinced by the section title of “Natural features?” I don’t think that we can categorically state that all naturally-occurring subterranea is associated with significant human activity. What sources would you be basing such a statement on? At first glance your preferred title makes what you’ve already criticized as a vague template much more vague. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

What you seem to be proposing is a navigation template for all Subterranea which is a bit beyond the scope of what I intend to do with this navigation template but could definitely make a good template if you wanted to make it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

The section title means little to me, because the template title is most important - that's how readers are identifying the association (they don't see the natural features on the individual articles). You're marrying "natural features" with "man-made" or "man-related" ones and man-related is too vague to be precisely useful. Because you are encompassing all natural phenomena articles as man-related that goes above and beyond what you're trying to accomplish, because not all natural phenomena are man-related and more often than not, are independent from that distinction. You'd be better off including specific man-made cave articles that are known to be used by man. At large, lava tubes (whether on mars, the moon, earth) are not man-related. Same goes for any type of cave, barring those few examples with historical man-related significance; those are the exceptions, not the rule, and that is the distinction your template does not make. Most caves don't have any significant man-related use, but you're trying to cram them into this navigation template despite that. If a man visits a place, does that make it man-related? I entirely disagree with that stance. If a man uses a place for its resources, such as mining or living, then I'd agree it would apply, but in that example, it's best to add the template to a specific cave article that notes that kind of use, rather than the broad encompassing articles that you have already attempted to include it on. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

"you are encompassing all natural phenomena articles as man-related” I am not, naturally subterranea with no significant human use don’t have a place there. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

But you are. You took the articles that are generally describing natural phenomena like lava tubes, caves, sea caves, ice caves and those in general have no significant human use. Yet, you still apply the template. Most of your articles with the template added are fine, because they are talking specifics. But a "cave" is not as specific. It's a very broad term that is defined right at the beginning of the lede as natural, which excludes it from human influence, in general. Generally, speaking, your natural features you've added don't fit your criteria at all. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Natural excludes human creation but not any other form of "human influence, in general." You would have a stronger argument if Cave#Archaeological and cultural importance didn't exist. The page itself covers human use, so whats the problem you have again? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Listing an example (Cave#Archaeological and cultural importance) is reiterating what I've already told you - of course there are exceptions; at this point you're telling me what I've already told you in advance, and ignoring the parts of my argument that don't suit your viewpoint. The problem is, you're adding a template to whole articles describing generalities, and you're doing it as if they aren't generalities, and you're doing it wholesale. So, I will repeat myself: the cave articles are discussing, in general, natural phenomena, and they aren't man-related, though exceptions exist. Those exceptions are the articles that should get your template link - i.e. specific articles like Bat Cave mine. You'd have more of an argument if the ledes (the abstract of the article) of caves, lava tubes, ice caves, sea caves, et al. mentioned they were "man-related", but they don't. Since you drew attention to the subtopic of Cave#Archaeological and cultural importance, that paragraph states people used caves. Sure, but they didn't use all caves, nor did they use a plurality of caves. They used only specific caves if it was beneficial to them. Most caves are not man-related, and your template addition to those articles is conspicuously misleading by it's mere presence. Because the emphasis of cave is on natural, and your argument emphasis is on man-related, the two are quite frankly, in opposition of each other and unlikely to be satisfactorily reconciled. Leitmotiv (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I would be amenable to removing any pages for natural features that don’t have a section for human use. Does that work for you? Misplaced Pages is inclusionary not exclusionary, if as you say some fraction of caves are man-related then we must include it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Is wikipedia always inclusive? I'm not trying to be contrarian, but I'd like to review what you are describing as policy. I'm more of the mind that a lede is the summary of the topic, and in that regard, cave is a antithetical to being included included in a manmade template. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, its a lead btw not a lede. See MOS:LEAD. Its also not a manmade template, its a Man-made and man-related template. Please be accurate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Could you address my main question instead of avoiding it? Until then, I will assume being inclusive is not policy. As for lede, it's something I learned and never unlearned from back in 2003 when many wikipedians were using it, and I still see it used frequently. I'll take note though. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Combining responses below, no need to maintain two threads of conversation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems to me that a type of article you are looking to add, is one that doesn't exist yet. Caves that have seen use by man in a significant way. Like Native American use, mining, as an abode, etc.Leitmotiv (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

You may create a template for that sort of article, thats not what I intend to create here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention to. I do have intention to exclude natural phenomena from your template. If you are looking to include natural phenomena with significant human use, I suggest creating that article, and applying your template to it. Until then, none of your natural features under the man-made template are applicable, because they are describing natural caves, in general - not natural caves that have human use in general. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

You don’t appear to understand how navigation templates work, in this response and in all your other responses you’re still treating it as a category even though you have acknowledged that you were mistaken about that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I may just not, however I am using the word template as short hand for your edits like this that were reverted. I'm not as interested in your actual template page, unless it becomes formal and starts trying to influence other pages that have already been reverted back. If you edit the natural cave and cave-related articles to add this template "Man-made and man-related Subterranea", then I will be opposing it until you find good rationale for putting a "man-made" templates on "natural" articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

That edit inserted a template, it did nothing more. What thing other than the template are you objecting to with your short hand? Also again you’re mistaken about the name of the template, the one you just describes doesn't exist as far as I know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The only real ground for objecting to a navbox's use on a page but not the template itself is when there are already a large number (6+) navigation boxes on that page and the addition of more would make it unwieldy. I don’t see that being the case with any of these. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? There's no grounds for removal if it's not applicable? Seems like a convenient oversight. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

If its listed in the navbox its applicable, the only recourse is arguing either that it shouldn’t be in the navbox or that the navbox shouldn’t be on the page because there are already too many (See Misplaced Pages:Navigation template). The way navboxes work is that they’re placed on the articles included in the navbox. I hate to help but your way forward would be to get the topics you don’t want the navbox featured on removed from the template itself, that will be hard in the case of pages which explicitly discuss human use of the natural feature. I already offered a compromise above thats more than fair, I suggest you take it. I’m glad you’ve accepted my core point that you were mistaken about the name of the template. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I think your facetious attempts to misrepresent my argument is a good example of bad faith, and I'd recommend you avoid doing that in the future. Your template still lists plenty of natural articles that are at odds with the title of the template. Please answer my question about inclusive policy which you avoided for a second time. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I did, if its on the navbox we include the navbox in the article. Simple as. You called it a "man-made” template, how is noting that mischaracterizing your argument? Its not a "man-made” template and never has been. The title of the template is “Man-made and man-related Subterranea” which is at odds with the inclusion of natural features related to human history and experience how? Perhaps you are misinterpreting the *and* as saying that pages are both those things? That would make sense if it was a category, as you originally believed, but not if its a navbox which is actually what it is. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Also look, given that you started out this whole thing talking aggressively about a non-existent category I wouldn’t pull out the "misrepresent my argument” card. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem is, you understand my argument now. But you decided to misrepresent it anyway. Don't mistake passion for aggression. Please answer my question about wikipedia policy that says inclusive is the rule of thumb. All you said was effectively "yup it is" but I told you I wanted to review policy. All I'm getting is crickets. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant that within the context of navboxes not as an overarching statement about wikipedia grand theory. I thought I had answered the question as it pertained to navboxes sufficiently. I can clearly see this is a subject you are passionate about, but don’t let passion lead to WP:OWNERSHIP. It is a navbox for man-made subterranean features as well as for man-related subterranean features. Does that clear up any remaining confusion? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The last specific argument you made was "then I will be opposing it until you find good rationale for putting a "man-made" templates on "natural" articles.” which still calls it a "man-made” template and denies the existence or significance of the second (equally important) half of the name. I don’t think I misrepresented anything. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware of ownership mentality conflicts, and I am beginning to see the possibility that articles such as cave may have the template. However, when you make a claim that wikipedia has an inclusive policy, the onus is on you to substantiate it, even more so now that you reframed it. I've read internal wikipedia philosphy on inclusion and exclusion. I'm of the opinion that it should be on a case by case basis and I personally refrain from tribalism. As for your last comment on "man-related use", I've already told you my thoughts on how incredibly vague that term is. It's so inclusive that a person's mere eye-contact of a natural feature means it is suddenly man-related. With that much levity, you could also put animal burrows in the template. Humans monitor them. Humans maintain and protect them. Humans even use them for hunting food. But are they really man-related? Slippery slope. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to navboxes we have an inclusive policy, I can see how my statement could be interpreted as universal but it was not intended to be. Although ok I guess technically its guidelines not policy that what should be challenged is the inclusion of the page in the navbox not the inclusion of the navbox on the page. I accept that the name is a little vague, but navboxes are inherently vague (they’re for related topics after all) and its the language that is currently used by the core page Subterranea (geography) which is supposed to be respected when making a navbox. I didn’t pick the language. I think our criteria should be whether or not a natural feature has a dedicated section about its use by humans, that would establish notability and I support the edits you’ve made to the template so far based on that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

All right, all right, it appears we've beaten this issue to death. In the spirit of inclusiveness of man merely casting their eyes in the direction of a subterranean feature, I've created a Subterranea template, which is including some of the things your template attempted, plus more. No doubt it will grow bigger. Now it's time for food. Thanks for the discussion. Leitmotiv (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! It will make a wonderful compliment to the more specific template. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:ANI#Interaction ban request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

As a result of that thread, I'm issuing a mutual interaction ban between you and CaradhrasAiguo, as spelled out at WP:IBAN. Note that this will be annoying to follow, because you're prolific editors in the same general topic area. You can edit articles the other person has edited, but you can't modify something they've added (WP:IBAN says you can't "undo" each other's edits, but consensus at this WP:AN discussion earlier this month is that this includes modifying each other's edits, which includes by it's very nature "undoing" a portion of the edit). If the other person's edit needs to be changed, someone else will notice and change it. Fixing things you think are wrong with the other's edits is now Someone Else's Problem. I'll log this at WP:EDRC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Appealing my topic ban". Thank you. — Newslinger talk 06:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

you may not make any reverts, subject to the usual exceptions, on Falun Gong

You have been sanctioned for edit warring on Falun Gong.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Killing of Luo Changqing. Thank you. Deryck C. 17:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I apologise for the impersonal templating (hence this custom message) - this templated message seems to be a policy requirement for opening an ANI thread. Deryck C. 17:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Horse Eye Jack

Thank you for creating Wolf warrior diplomacy.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I was actually about to try to write this article myself, having seen it come up on social media, and was pleasantly surprised to find this waiting in the new pages queue.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

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

_signed, Rosguill 23:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

You are mentioned in passing...

...at the discussion Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Thomas Meng. Just FYI. You are not required to respond, but you are permitted to make a comment if you wish. Binksternet (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Remove unsourced content on BLP without waiting

Hey Horse Eye Jack, Thanks for tagging the unsourced information here. But according to policy you should just go ahead and removed it anyway. So I removed it. Feel free to remove other unsourced and poorly sourced info at any BLP.VR _talk 03:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

In general I will leave what appears to be uncontroversial and non-derogatory text on a BLP (especially basic biographical information) up for a day or two after tagging in the hopes that someone watching that page will swoop in with a citation (it happens more times than you’d think). Obviously you do it a little differently and I have no problem with you immediately removing the information (its certainly well supported by the relevant policies/guidelines). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Another thing, I saw you made a couple of comments at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Nonie_Darwish_a_reliable_source?. Do you have any opinion on the reliability of the source? If so, I'd appreciate it if you could make it clear in that section.VR _talk 19:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Military Superiority

Do you think that Military superiority should be a redirect to either Overmatch or Full-spectrum dominance, or possibly a new article? power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably its own article, they’re all similar concepts but they’re different enough in content and context for each to have its own article. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI

here since apparently the OP didn't see the giant bolded red banner that requires them to tell you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan Somaliland

Hey, I saw you were cracking skulls on the Foreign Relations of Taiwan page, and I wanted to tell you about a new development in Somaliland Taiwan relations Does this news change anything on that page? I'm not sure, so I thought I would ask you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really change much, although the coverage would explain why a Somali nationalist turned up and went all vandal... The only change with the recent round of stories is that there probally is enough coverage for a stand alone article for the mission like Taipei Trade Office in the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Taipei Liaison Office in the Republic of South Africa, etc and now that its open such a creation wouldnt be premature. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

W. Ian Lipkin

Hi, could i trouble you to take a look at this page - specifically from the SARS-CoV-2 section onward? The subject, a celebrity scientist, has deep ties to the CCP and controversial views about the CCP's transparency, Gain-of-Function experiments, facemasks, and the origins of the pandemic. Attempts to include referenced details of these views, including direct quotes from the subject, are repeatedly wiped by a user called Thucydides411. It's up now as of writing but will likely be wiped again when he gets out of bed. It would be great to have some alternative eyes on this. Before the BangBefore the Bang (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Before the Bang: Please read WP:CANVAS, a policy that your above post violates. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)