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

In which a monk seeks sage counsel from the wise Horse Eye Jack
hi, Horse Eye Jack, I am not sure which of my editions have been removed. Please give me more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liuxueling (talk • contribs) 02:59, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello Liuxueling, it was at Robot Monk Xian'er and Xuecheng (monk) but I see you have already found them. Before you edit further might I trouble you to peruse Conflict of interest? There is a way to go about suggesting the edits you want to make, but you’re going to need to follow the rules. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop removing sources
Please stop your mass removal of Chinese sources from multiple articles. As you're well aware, there's no consensus that all Chinese state sources are unreliable, and I've already shown you multiple times that they are widely used by scholars. -Zanhe (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There is clear consensus that they are unreliable for factual reporting... Many of those pages are WP:BLP so you would not just need to demonstrate that the sources arent unrealiable you would need to fully desmonstrate that they are in fact WP:RS and specifically meet the standards of WP:VERIFY. If as you say there is no clear consensus on reliability then they are *entirely inappropriate* for use on a BLP page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” I edit based on WP policy, guidelines, and consensus not my own personal opinions, I expect the same of you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Again you're confused about WP:RS and WP:BIASED. The Chinese government obviously engages in propaganda (in a very ham-fisted and easily detected manner, as your sources note), but all major governments do, sometimes with outright lies leading to disastrous consequences (cf. Iraq and weapons of mass destruction and Gulf of Tonkin incident). But this is no reason to consider all government sources unreliable, especially when dealing with uncontroversial topics such as pop culture. -Zanhe (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I never said we should consider all government sources unreliable I said we should consider all Chinese government sources unreliable, organizations like the BBC, NPR, and Deutsche Welle all have editorial independence and operate in countries with freedom of the press (all three even challenge their domestic intelligence agencies). See below for specific information about reliability. We don’t discriminate based on government or non-government, we discriminate based on whether or not a source meets WP:RS. WP:BLP makes no distinction between pop culture articles and otherwise, I note that pop culture articles are often more controversial than non-pop culture articles... At least based on how often I see people get into nasty fights over pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * President Trump has made 15,000+ false or misleading claims, far more than I can tell from the Chinese government. Are you going to launch a campaign to purge US government sources (at least from the executive branch) from Wikipedia? -Zanhe (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If US state media organizations had made 15,000+ false or misleading claims you bet your socks I would! The President in America does not have control over the state media, this is where the concept of editorial independence which Wikipedia uses comes into it. Without Freedom of the press editorial independence simply isn’t possible, would you like to argue that Chinese sources have editorial independence or that China allows freedom of the press? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course the US gov does not control the US media, but you could start by purging the tens of thousands of pages that use ".gov" sources, which do not have editorial independence and are known to have spread misinformation and waged several wars based on that. -Zanhe (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you would like to propose that at WP:RSN you’re more than welcome to, personally I would not use an unnatributed .gov source under almost any circumstance. A minor exceptions being biographical information about government agencies and those employed by them (for instance an Ambassador’s CV or a Minister’s years in a position). I would note that I have in fact used Chinese government sources specifically for the CVs of ambassadors before. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Using random articles as side-channel to MASS PURGE Chinese media sources
You are using random articles as side-channel to MASS PURGE Chinese media sources. Don't do this. If you want to disallow Chinese media sources, you will need to go through proper channels. Do ping me if you do.

All your MASS PURGES is without regard to the nature of the material and content. This is indicative as you provide no legitimate rationale on the basis of the material and content, but quite strictly remove sources without such considerations. --Cold Season (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP allows no wiggle room, there has *never* been a consensus that mainland Chinese sources are WP:RS. If you would like to use mainland Chinese media on BLP pages, you will need to go through proper channels. Do ping me if you do. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You have nothing to stand on with BLP, as your sole focus is removing sources and not material. --Cold Season (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please dont post the exact same arugument here and at Talk:Death of Luo Changqing, its just a waste of space. A simple review of my editing record will show that I have removed both sources and material but yes in general I have tried my hardest to retain information in articles while attaching a citation needed tag so that other editors can properly source the information if they have a strong opinion about its inclusion. Do I make the right call every single time? No I don’t, but thats what consensus editing is all about. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Go to your user contributions and CTRL+F "remove unreliable source". Your edits has no legitimate rationale, as you do not provide one other than "remove unreliable source", and your edits are focused on removing Chinese media sources. --Cold Season (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you’d have browsed those edits you would have noticed they’re not all for Chinese media sources... What else have I “purged” (great word, very apt for discussions like these which relate to human rights in China) as you say? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Collection of WP:RS reporting on misinformation in Chinese media
(this section is for Horse Eye Jack’s person use, mostly for use on WP:RSN, please do not edit) Chinese state media has purposefully distributed disinformation.

There is almost no media freedom or editorial independence in China, per the BBC "Most Chinese news sites are prohibited from gathering or reporting on political or social issues themselves, and are instead meant to rely on reports published by official media, such as state news agency Xinhua.” and media outlets are shut down for doing independent reporting.   Most indipendent media outlets have been forced to shut their doors and the few that remain publish under heavy state supervision and control.    Xi Jinping has stated that Chinese state media are  “publicity fronts” for the CCP/government and that “All news media run by the Party must work to speak for the Party’s will and its propositions and protect the Party’s authority and unity,” (Xinhua translation)

The Chinese government puts significant pressure on foreign media operating within China to toe the party line. In 2012 al-Jazeera English was forced out of China after after publishing accurate but embarrassing reporting on issues sensitive to the Chinese government.

CGTN coming strong with an article titled "By following CNN, we find how they make fake news about Xinjiang” published on 13 January 2020. I suggest everone does as they say and "Click the video to find who's spinning a lie for the audience.”

Just curious what you think of this talk page discussion (a 3rd opinion I guess)
Over here. I know it seems weird since we're not exactly buddies (heh), but this is the first time I encountered a group of editors like these. Donkey Hot-day (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

disruptive edit notice
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of modern armament manufacturers, you may be blocked from editing. 112.45.194.206 (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Well thats super weird! Its signed by 112.45.194.206 but was made by 112.45.194.161. 112.45.194.206 did post on my page, but back in January. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No it is not, this is simply an instance of rotating IPs ( which you should know for editing as long as you have ), but then again, I think you are "playing dumb" to give a deceptively cuddly appearance. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi CaradhrasAiguo! Now that you’re back on my talk page can you answer the direct question posed above? You never specified what comment you were warning me over even though you are required to give justification for warnings. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, no justification is required for warnings apart from posts notifying of AN/I or AN/EW threads. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If clarification is requested it must be given, otherwise it would appear to be an improper use of a warning template. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So you literally made that up, then. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Mmmmmm nope, but it seems you did make up your accusation of a WP:NPA violation. Which you have ironically followed with a whole series of NPA violations yourself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been unable to provide a single quote from a policy or template usage documentation to back your claim. For the record, Template:uw-npa4 makes no mention of requirements. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You’re on a tangent, whats the personal attack? A dif will suffice. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

You were the one who claimed a requirement for justification to begin with. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You put a warning on my talk page yet you won’t tell me which edit you warned me over? You’re the only one who can explain it as you placed it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Justification is required if it is unclear what instance is being referred to. Accusing someone of a serious violation (and NPAvios are serious), and then refusing to provide evidence when asked is considered casting aspersions. To quote Arbcom's ruling on the subject: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. You have been asked to provide evidence in the form of diffs; please do so. Darthkayak (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

MoS far-right advocacy
I didn't abandon the "discussion" any more than you or did. We all derailed it because you started spouting off your characteristic absolutism (and ignorance), refuted by multiple WP:RS. And I stand by my typification of you as a WP:NOTHERE vandal. As evidenced by the last AN/I thread opened against you, multiple editors (including those focused on non-Sinosphere topics) believe you are not editing constructively. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The only uninvolved editor to participate in the ANI took my side entirely, no admin thought it merited action. Your accusations are in violation of WP:NPA and I’m asking you to retract them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of moving the goalposts ( as you have done just now ), everyone who has disagreed with you at that AN/I thread has more than twice your edit count and has been editing on the site for 5+ years. You even managed the herculean feat of riling the normally agreeable Zanhe, himself a well-respected prolific DYK / content creator.
 * No admin not paying attention to the thread (due to other threads) does not equate to not thinking it merited action. Another ludicrous fallacy. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It was up at ANI for more than a week... Please don’t characterize my statement as a "ludicrous fallacy” when I do nothing of the sort to you. You might remember that the first time you ever commented on this page it was to chime in uninvited on a dispute between myself and Zanhe. Once again I am asking you to retract your statement which violated WP:NPA or I will be forced to file a complaint. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * When your thread was up at AN/I there was at least one indefinite block / (topic) ban discussion going on. And, at the time I first chimed in here, your goodwill with Zanhe had not evaporated as it has now; the only irony here is your mentioning of a timeline, as a poor attempt at non-defense, has only served as a reminder of your epic disruption.
 * The only way to retract an edit summary is to WP:REVDEL it, which I doubt an admin would be willing to expend the time to do that. You are welcome to request a REVDEL. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t want you to revert it I want you to say it isn't true, right here... right now. This is your last chance. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will say you are not a vandal. I will leave it to others to decide whether you have violated the WP:NOTHERE tenets of Dishonest and gaming behaviors, Little or no interest in working collaboratively, Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:NORESVAND "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing nor to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself; instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal attacks.” and also the supplement Avoid the word "vandal", you are mistaken about the appropriateness of using that word. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China Air Force
Please don't blindly revert just because someone has reverted you - in particular reverting someone updating the 2019 edition of the Flight International directory to the 2020 edition does not help to improve the article, no matter what you think about the rest of the changes. In addition be more careful of your edit summaries - referring to someone as "darling" is likely to cause offense. Please don't do that.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The extent of the edits made picking the good from the bad within them too tedious to reasonably consider, they needed to be discussed on the talk page and the user making the edits adamantly refuses to do so. They even violated 3RR over it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you review edit you will find that the armaments and the air defense sections were near identically duplicated (as in two identically titled sections with slightly different content)... Reverting such a damaging edit is very appropriate. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
You are making edits which some deem controversial, but I think I would agree with you in some cases. Keep making the edits you think are productive and let me know if I can help you. Remember to focus on producing the encyclopaedia and not let the controversies overwhelm your time here. Have fun.

Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:54, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 

February 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China and Chinese-related articles. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you be more specific? I’ve made a lot of comments on that page and none appear to me to be personal attacks. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Do not bully bold editors. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Holding disruptive, unconstructive editors (who know how to WP:GAME) such as HEJ accountable is hardly bullying bold editors. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer the gosh darn question, which edit are you warning me over? You’ve been well informed at this point that you are required to provide an explanation of your warning (see Darthkayak’s explanation to you below). You cant just keep participating on my talk page while ignoring your basic obligation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope, WP:ASPERSIONS cites Information page, which as of this writing  explicitly  states It describes the editing community's established practice on some aspect or aspects of Wikipedia's norms and customs. It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Perhaps, before making another run at your nauseating wikilawyering (as also described by Zanhe and Jeff5102), you would take care to read the header at the top of the page you are citing using as a trump card of sorts? Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What. Edit(s). Did. You. Warn. Me. Over. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I'm challenging you. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You are bullying others by your actions. I would suggest friendly interaction where it is possible. You're just turning away people that are trying to participate. Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No,, HEJ is here to remove sources he dislikes (spuriously citing BLP where the article isn't remotely biographical). It does not help he gives a false veneer of civility while being condescending in editing disputes where he barely escapes edit warring sanctions due to his complete mastery of WP:GAME tactics. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are thinking of this editor as an extremist is part of the problem biasing you against the person. It doesn't matter if the editor is extremist. Extremists are allowed to edit Wikipedia. The only question is does the editor intend to create a useful encyclopaedia. I see that effort for sure and I urge tolerance. You call the person extremist, but in the face of an authority seeking to stamp out your perspective, you might get a little extreme. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Geez I wish I was as good as CaradhrasAiguo says... A “legendary wikilawyer” and now apparently I have "complete mastery of WP:GAME tactics.” If you didnt mean those as personal attacks it would almost be flattering. You aren’t going to tell me which edit your NPA warning is over are you? You also need to watch what language you use, I have never advanced an extremist opinion once on wikipedia and if you think I have then present difs to support your claim. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you still refuse to provide diffs showing HEJ making the personal attacks you allege, and since you refuse to accept Arbcom statements as sufficient to show that you have to back up such claims with evidence, I hope you will instead accept Wikipedia's policy regarding personal attacks. To quote from it, personal attacks include Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.. You have not yet provided diffs showing the personal attacks HEJ has made, so I repeat my earlier request; please provide them. Thank you. Darthkayak (talk) 02:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Because your statements both here and at the AN/I thread are in direct contravention of policy, or why else would veteran editors such as Zanhe, Jeff5102 hold a view dissenting with yours? Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Asking you to bring forth evidence for your accusation is a contravention of policy? Please explain which of my statements have violated policies and how, and I will apologize and retract them. As for why Zanhe and Jeff5102 hold different views, sometimes reasonable people disagree about things. I can think someone is wrong about a thing, and still believe that they have genuine reasons for thinking it that are worth consideration - I firmly believe that that's the point of discussion. Lastly, I still don't understand why you wont provide the diffs; I am not your opponent, and if you have them, it would be simple to share them so that we can be on the same page. Darthkayak (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I will only provide a diff if you can link your email to your account. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:57, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In case anyone is wondering in his entire wikipedia career CaradhrasAiguo has created 19 main space pages, none is above a stub. I have created 89 main space pages: 2 Bs, 19 Cs, 40 Starts, and 10 Stubs. This is why its weird and hard to take seriously when they say I’m not here to build an encyclopedia as they have done at least a half dozen times without citing any evidence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You know very well the vast majority of my edits are semi-automated / maintenance, and that all other users besides Darthkayak at the latest AN/I thread have accused you of being wholly unconstructive. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 02:51, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make factual corrections to company page
Hi Horse Eye Jack

I previously made factual corrections to the Grosvenor Group page which you didn't accept because I work for the company. I have previously submitted the suggested changes and given sources but no one made them. Please could you advise how I should go about ensuring the page is up to date? You can visit the Grosvenor Group website with link to the latest Annual Review which has the latest information about key members of staff and financial information, which is currently out of date.

Thank you Natasha

NatashaGrosvenorGroup (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)