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

Edit WarringPompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I note you have been edit warring on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
 * 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/w/index.php?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/w/index.php?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)
 * 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 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 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) 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, 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? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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)

Reaction
I have also found Horse_Eye_Jack is an expert on WP who knows exactly how to stop improvements to Wikipedia 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)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is WP:ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As a result of that thread, I'm issuing a mutual interaction ban between you and, 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 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)