User talk:Horse Eye's Back

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

AAAroads[edit]

I'm pretty sure this is yet another sock of BKFIP. Considering you've been a critic of AARoads Wiki, I wouldn't put it past them to troll you that way. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely, but who knows with these things when there are so few edits and so many idiots (and very smart dogs) on the internet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is that why you're tagging multiple road-related articles as failing GNG, even road lists? -------User:DanTD (talk) 04:42, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DanTD: Nothing at all to do with it. I was tagging road-related articles before the harassment started, lists must also meet notability requirements. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor[edit]

Hey, if you want to start another thread about me at AN/I you can do it the normal way. Please don't refactor my comment to make it look like I started a thread about myself. [1] And if you do start another thread, please notify me, as I don't have AN/I on my watchlist. ~Awilley (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a new thread and the old one was already about you, I did not refactor your comment. I gave it a header because its placement under a the header for another discussion was misleading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I don't want to continue the disucssion on the talk page because there's already enough wall of text there. I'm not trying to suggest matters are simple, rather I have been concerned with the "walled garden" and the drive by comments from some that this is all very complex and "grey". What we attribute the cause of the present case to (is it religious alignment vs financial ... or the interplay of the two) is less significant to me right now than an outcome which clearly demonstrates that policy and guidelines were systematically undermined breached. Our approaches might be different, but I don't think we disagree on the fundamentals. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC[edit]

Out of an abundance of caution, I'm asking for a clarification of your comment here: "Because she was paid to make them. Thats a direct financial COI. I didn't say she needed to send the articles to AfC, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC."

What do you mean by that? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean: Thats a little vague, can you maybe start with what you are confused by? The first sentence answers "Can you think of any reason why, e.g., she should consider herself to have a conflict of interest with a Japanese interment camp that was closed before she was born," and the second answers "then do please explain that." The third sentence is a response to "No, I don't agree that articles she needed to send articles such as Stretch Armstrong (ska band) and List of inmates of Topaz War Relocation Center and Anarchism and Esperanto and Hidden Figures (picture book) through AFC." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the last sentence, so have stricken the first two. As far as I know, there is no requirement that new articles go through the AfC process. Editors are volunteers who may use their own user space to create articles and directly add them to the encyclopedia. It seems you might be in conflict with that idea. That's why I ask. Maybe I have misunderstood you. I have written a number of articles and never used the AfC process. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valjean: This feels like deja vu... I didn't say that there was a requirement that new articles go through the AfC process, I said she should have sent the articles to AfC. This isn't my opinion, this is a pretty literal summary of what it gives at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as instructions for editors with COI: "you should put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly;" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense for a COI editor. Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that advice. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its good advice, I have yet to see a COI editor who does everything they "should" per WP:COI who has gotten into trouble. The trouble comes when people wade into the grey area of "well we shouldn't... But we can" because the community isn't going to forgive mistakes that are made when people are doing something they shouldn't be doing in the same way they do mistakes that are made when people are doing what they should be doing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We tend to forgive human frailty, but don't let foolishness pass without mention. Keep up the good work. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

Hope you enjoy this goat!

Viriditas (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New legal article[edit]

I have finished enough of Consciousness of guilt (legal) to go public with it. Further development and improvement will be appreciated. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know, I will keep it in mind for future work. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were mentioned in a Dot Dot News opinion article back in 2022[edit]

In case you weren't aware of it, I found an opinion article from 2022 from the Hong Kong news outlet Dot Dot News that mentioned you: https://english.dotdotnews.com/a/202202/23/AP6215e7f6e4b0482c7bbc32b7.html

Félix An (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Félix An: Don't know if I'd seen that one specifically but yes in general was aware of Fowdy, they're ex-wiki with an axe to grind... Banned for doxxing I believe. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus taiwanica[edit]

It looks like Citrus taiwanica is a synonym of Citrus × aurantium, the bitter orange. Usually I or another editor would simply redirect the article to the accepted name without comment. But Citrus is a popular genus so I thought I would ask you first; is there any reason to believe the Citrus × taiwanica is a legit taxon? Abductive (reasoning) 05:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back&oldid=1221152725"