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

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Horse Eye Jack

Thank you for creating Gui Congyou.

User:Willsome429, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

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

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

 Willsome 4 29  (say hey or see my edits!) 03:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
You send messages to people accusing them of disruptive editing on talk pages. Please explain how and where these talks caused disruption. Horse Eye, please note that Wikipedia is not your personal play thing and toy, and you are not entitled to impose your personal prejudiced opinions on other people. 86.162.104.1 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifically? Well I guess these ones . Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Do not edit war
You've been around a while, so you should know better that to engage in an edit war at Ammar Campa-Najjar. You are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. Users are expected to collaborate with others and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: Use the article's talk page to discuss disputed changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * You appear to misunderstand, there is only one revert... the second edit includes a substantial change in source placement in an attempt to reach consensus. I have also allowed the opinion of the other editor to stand, I explicitly chose not to edit war. Note that my most recent edit uses their version as the last clean dif. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies, you are correct. I misread the diffs.
 * It would be helpful (to readers of the article history like myself, and especially to any less experienced editors you revert) to use a less generic edit summary than "revert to last clean dif". Although there are times when little or no summary is fine, a few words explaining your reasoning - what the problem is that you're reverting - can go a long way. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:5LZ. Thank you. 5LZ 06:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit war notice
Your recent editing history at List of modern armament manufacturers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. 112.45.194.206 (talk) 09:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting escalation from cursing me out in Mandarin, I think my favorite bit though was you attempting to get my account shut off by reporting my username at Usernames for administrator attention as a "Violation of the username policy as a disruptive username. Horse Eye refers to meatus in some cultures and Jack means hoodlum in English slang.” Its the fish Horse-eye Jack silly. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment on my talk page
These are complicated times, and though we would wish to keep politics out of it, the truth is that one person's "irrelevant politics" is quite often another person's choosing sides. I won't be going further in that discussion -- no part of that "warning" happened there, so I have no obligation to post again to keep it from appearing unchallenged. Everything that needed saying there has already been said. But thank you again for speaking up on my talk page. It may seem odd that I have not edited that article at all, but this is one I will stay completely clear of while it is still a current event. Later, if it needs it and I am free, I will help to clean it up. In the meantime, I will simply hope that the current morbidity does not become as bad as SARS. (I worked in a hospital during 1st-stage quarantine protocol, although thankfully not in one of the epicentres.)) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)