User talk:Horse Eye's Back

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Comments directed at other users

Please do not make comments such as the one in the thread at VPM; while this was not a bright-line violation of linking to their profile, it is still harassment to provide personal details and indicate that you potentially know who they are and are actively tracking their movements. If you have private information that indicates someone is not being truthful, it needs to go to the proper people, not a noticeboard as dirty laundry. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: excuse my ignorance but based on the linked page you appear to be one of the proper people. How do I email this to you? Also note that the user edits under their own name, we all know who they are. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps you can suggest someone else? I see you are also involved (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management) in the LDS COI controversy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not involved in that case, which if I am not mistaken is about a different set of COI issues (but definitely not directly related to this specific issue). You are welcome to email a different administrator if you feel that to be a better solution. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is directly related to this specific issue, but its good to know that you aren't actually involved (I see there was much debate on the subject). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not involved and I saw in the log what Primefac did. You need to take a step back here, really. Drmies (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Primefac wants they can forward you what I have emailed them, the instructions seem to discourage emailing multiple admins the same stuff. I admit I reacted largely in shock, I've never had someone do something so dastardly on me before on here. I still am a bit in shock in now, its certainly one of the most bizarre interactions I've ever had on here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I just saw the most recent evidence presented by Fram tying it to the case. I somehow missed the original BYU connection. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have email enabled. If screenshots etc are not possible, a written record of what you know and/or have seen is suitable. As far as I am aware or can tell, the user in question has not revealed their name, though obviously I have not been through every contribution, but there is nothing in the obvious places (i.e. user pages) to indicate the disclosure was made. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Their username is their professional name, the connection to BYU has been disclosed before although not in great specifics. I will have to make a new wiki email (I've lost the password for the one linked on my page, big apology to the people who keep emailing me) but yes, can do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seems that I can send the email without having to use the account, do you mind not being able to reply to that email? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Email received, will give things a look. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Ziyang Misogyny

Hey, so I edited the Zhao Ziyang page to remove the misogyny claims which you reverted. I’m pretty new to editing Wikipedia but I did a massive rabbit hole dive researching basically every single English language source related to the topic, and the info in the article did not seem to be corroborated and was in fact disputed by a few sources. So I thought it would be correct to edit the page.

You said to add my sources which I’d be fine with doing, but I wasn’t sure what I’d add, as I don’t really see a point in having a part of the page which is just saying he isn’t a misogynist (as there isn’t really any affirmative claim being made). Do you want me to just add another sentence with the sources saying the claim is disputed after the already existing sentences? Thanks!

For reference here are links to my sources: The first link should automatically word search to the correct page, and the second has relevant info on page twenty. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources contradicts the claim in the Stamford Press book unless I'm missing something. Can you be more specific? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright here’s my interpretation. So this is the current claim:
“The 13th Congress was also notable for the lack of representation by women at the highest levels of the party; Members of the All-China Women's Federation attributed this to Zhao's rise to General-Secretary. Zhao had previously made comments opposing the participation of women in political processes.”
I think the first two sentences are basically correct and not contradicted by my two sources, as the first part about the 13th congress was reiterated in basically every source including mine, and the second part about the All-China Women’s Federation is said to be based in the interviews carried out by Ellen R Judd with members of the Federation (which is the source for this whole quote). However, the last sentence which implies that the Federation is correct, is given zero citations in Judd’s work with the only proof being that she said a member of the Federation said it. This makes it looks like Ziyang had been known for saying women should not be allowed to participate in the political process, and also the Federation says he is responsible for the 13th congress, when really an anonymous member or members of the Federation (according to Judd) is the only one who said both these things.
On the other hand my first source which is about the same topic as Judd’s work only mentions Ziyang in a positive light, saying he encouraged pluralism in ideas including feminist ones, and increased the autonomy of the All-China Women’s Federation. If Ziyang had been the primary cause for women losing power in the Chinese government, as Judd claims, then this would be a pretty weird framing.
My second source is more direct though, with a (cited) quote from Zhao Ziyang where he says in response to questions about the lack of women in the 13th congress: “It was the hope of us all that some female comrades would join the Political Bureau, but none were elected. However, this doesn't mean we have adjusted our policies on women.” If Ziyang had previously made public comments stating his opposition to female participation in the political process, it seems weird that he would then publicly contradict himself. And again there is nothing mentioning Ziyang opposing women in politics, which would be something you’d want to bring up if you were again writing about Feminism and China and were talking about the supposed leader of the anti-feminist movement in the Chinese government. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judd does not claim that Ziyang was the "primary cause for women losing power in the Chinese government" and the article doesn't either. Neither of those sources contradict the first unless you want to lean into WP:OR, nothing in that quote contradicts the statement... That is exactly what a misogynist would say and an omission can't be a contradiction. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't say he was the "primary cause" in the same language I did but unless I'm misunderstanding the text the meaning seems identical. The Federation said that the lack of female representation in the 13th congress is directly attributable to Zhao Ziyang becoming General-Secretary, which implies he led the movement to remove the female presence in congress, or else they would have just said he contributed to the problem. The way its written definitely reads to me like they're saying without Zhao Ziyang there would be women in the congress, and therefore Zhao Ziyang was the sole, primary, or deciding factor. That's why I brought up the omission part, because there have been a lot of papers including the two I referenced talking about Feminist issues in reference to the 13th Congress and none of them mention that Ziyang was a leader or member of the movement to remove women from the congress, which you'd think would be a pretty important thing to bring up if they were mentioning Ziyang.
I agree that I think WP:OR might apply here, as from my reading of Judd's work there definitely seem to be no citations or claimed sources for the page which talks about Zhao Ziyang. But in the beginning of the book it says the study was compiled from a number of interviews with different women who were/are members of different branches of the Federation, and there are many instances of Judd saying some phenomenon was testified to by a member of the Federation who was there at the time. Even this is not available for the Zhao Ziyang claims though which are not said to have come from any individual, and it is unclear where they came from, though presumably from one or more of Judd's interviews. Would the above described qualify as WP:OR?
I also agree that Zhao Ziyang could have said the quote I provided while still being a misogynist. However, the original claim stated that Ziyang had made comments stating he did not believe in female political participation. While it is not clarified whether these comments were public or private, for one the way the claim is written on the Wikipedia page made me assume he publicly advocated for these views (so I feel the way the info is presented is somewhat misleading if this was not the case), and for two if Ziyang was only misogynist in private, how does Judd know? If Ziyang was a misogynist in private it seems doubtful he'd be voicing those views to members of the All-China Women's Federation, so the only possible way they could know is if it became some kind of major gossip or open secret throughout all of the government. If so, while I do concede the Chinese government is pretty secretive, I feel like there would be some other source from someone confirmed to have been in the government at that time who could corroborate this claim, especially since Zhao Ziyang is now seen as an enemy to the CCP and the government would probably not care about keeping Zhao's secrets quiet.
Finally, again I am new to editing so you'll have to excuse me if the answer to this question is obvious, but in this case how do I prove a negative here? I think it's totally possible that even with all the stuff I've read through Ziyang is actually a misogynist, as there could totally be Chinese language evidence that has never been translated to English proving it or something like that. I just don't think Judd provides adequate evidence, and other accounts paint a very different picture of Zhao's involvement in the Feminist movement. Like what kind of evidence would I need to disprove Judd? To my knowledge she gives no sources and the only implied source is some anonymous member of the Federation who may or may not be of any rank, and may or may not have access to any amount of evidence. So no matter what other sources say, since we don't really know the specifics of the claim or evidence they would never be able to concretely contradict Judd's statements, because we don't know if the claim is backed up by some evidence or testimony we don't have access to. Any evidence of primary statements made by Ziyang or his allies could be chalked up to lies to look good in public, so they wouldn't disprove Judd, and any secondary accounts which don't include Judd's claims don't disprove Judd either because it's just omission. So I'm just not sure what evidence is needed for this kind of situation. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The academic source is allowed to do OR. We aren't, we can't on our own disprove a source. The important thing to remember is that wikipedia isn't about what is true (that would be a hopeless pursuit) its about what is verifiable. If you think other accounts paint a different picture than add those accounts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright thank you for your help. I have updated my edit to include both perspectives properly with citations, and made a minor edit to improve the clarity of the original claim. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you have done appears to be WP:SYNTH, you can't juxtapose sources like that to make them together say something they don't say individually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to here your explanation for why you think this is WP:SYNTH, because I don't think I altered the meaning of either sources. The original source says the ACWF attributed the lack of women in party positions to Zhao, and the source I added simply states what Zhao said on the issue. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you've done it in such a ways as to cast doubt on the first source... Which you can do if the source actually does that, but seeing how one source heavily predates the other I don't see how that is possible. It looks like you're trying to make Zhao look good. Some of your changes also have WP:V issues, you're trying to fit your preferred narrative but the source doesn't have that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you might think that, but my intention is to make the certainty of the allegations more clear. The current edit of the page basically presents the claims of the ACWF as true without scrutiny, and then makes the claim that Zhao Ziyang made open statements against female participation as if it is some generally accepted fact, when it is actually also an uncorroborated, unsourced, and exceptional claim from the ACWF. I agree with you that putting more doubt into the conversation makes Zhao Ziyang look better, but I think that kind of doubt is warranted here and I don't think doing so betrays the meanings of either sources or unfairly biases the conversation. I made it clear in my most recent edit of the time distance between the two sources, stating that the Ziyang's quote was made in response to newspapers at the time, whereas Judd's claim was made later, so I don't think that is an issue. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is a problem... We don't question the sources the source uses, especially when its a high quality academic source like the one here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this is an exceptional claim, which has to be corroborated by multiple high quality sources. I bring up which sources Judd uses in that context, because they could corroborate her claims. In addition, it is made by an organization with a clear conflict of interest. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it exceptional? That would mean that it was unexpected or out of character, the quote you provided makes it seem very much in character. The way you phrase ACWF also makes it seem like you think that their opinions are worth less in this context because they're women. Note that the claim wasn't made by the organization (it was made by members), but you keep saying that it was (and even tried to put that into the article). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright let me go through my reasons for finding the claim exceptional.
"Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;"
This claim is pretty important, as it is deciding how Ziyang viewed 50% of humanity. Again, zero corroboration by any other sources, mainstream or not.
"Challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;"
The ACWF is a part of the Chinese government, who removed Ziyang from power, placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life, actively censor him from the media, and persecute his followers. Even though my argument has never hinged on this, I think you could make a very easy case that there is a conflict of interest here.
"Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;"
Even if we disregard the quote I provided as having been a political stunt (which I still think should be provided regardless as we should not decide whether we personally think people were being honest when they made claims), this is at the very least inconsistent with Zhao's generally liberal and western views, and goes against his support of greater autonomy for women's organizations at the time, as well as his support for universal suffrage and political engagement by all sectors of society. Now I'm not saying it'd be impossible for Ziyang to simultaneously hold his other views and be a misogynist, but it would certainly be surprising.
"Claims contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions—especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living and recently dead people."
Mainstream assumptions on this topic are that Ziyang did not view women any differently than the rest of society, and while not a feminist he was also not a misogynist. If you can find one mainstream account that agrees with Judd on this claim I would be surprised. In China as well, Ziyang is generally viewed positively by Feminists, and after looking through Chinese feminist social media comments about Ziyang I could not find a single claim that he was a misogynist, nor a single one which was even negative about him generally. The CCP has given no official statements regarding his misogyny as well, and outside of Judd's book there doesn't seem to have ever been an official allegation from the ACWF.
Your claim that I think less of the ACWF because they are women is to be frank pretty ridiculous, I consider myself a feminist and the reason I am skeptical here is because there is no evidence for this claim and because it is being made by people with an incentive to potentially lie or not be accurate. I would like to know what part of my edits made you get the impression that I was a misogynist?
I think I am warranted in my belief that this claim is exceptional, but I am fine with keeping it in the article, I just want to add further context for readers. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No claim is being made about how Ziyang viewed 50% of humanity. We don't claim that he was a misogynist, we just say that he opposed the participation of women in the political process but we don't give a reason why. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you're literally saying he's misogynist or not is immaterial. This still does not change the fact that the first red flag is clearly applicable here, and you do not even need every possible box to be checked for a claim to be considered exceptional, you only need one.
Also I just checked through some of your previous response, and I feel like your comment on the member organization distinction here is kind of bad faith. While there is a difference between a member of an organization and the organization itself makes a claim is generally important, in the context of this talk page I do not think it is relevant, as both the organization itself and members representing that organization have the same conflict of interest, which was my point. Now, in the actual article I do agree a mistake like that would need to be corrected, but to be clear, the statement that the organization was the one making the claim, which you said I keep repeating, was not mine. My most recent edit only made minor revisions to Roving Personality Construct's edit, and I simply forgot to change his edit to say members rather than the Federation itself. If you looked at my previous edit which Roving Personality Construct changed to say this, you would know that I did in fact say it was members of the Federation.
The consistent theme of your feeling that I am being intentionally obstructive or malicious, really feels disappointing to me when I feel I have really tried my best to be cordial and work with you. I honestly unironically truthfully do not feel I have tried to bend any facts in order to suit a narrative, and the narrative I am purportedly trying to suit is most certainly not misogynist. I simply feel Judd has not provided proper evidence to be a standalone source for this kind of exceptional claim, and in order to make more clear to readers the degree of uncertainty involved in said claim, would like to give additional context to where the claims are originating from. If you disagree that the claim is exceptional, can you please read through my previous post and fully address my arguments? Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not immaterial, its actually the only question which matters. That is how WP:V works. In order to make the argument that the claim is exceptional you have to misrepresent it, or as you say "bend any facts" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you’re saying Ziyang is a misogynist or not is completely irrelevant, as the standard is not based in whether there is a claim of misogyny, but whether a claim is “Surprising or apparently important” and not corroborated by multiple sources. Is your argument seriously that a prominent progressive politician from the late 20th to early 21st century openly stating he opposes female political participation is not surprising or important? That seems to be a pretty consequential and radically conservative position to take, and clearly breaks with the conventional narrative of Zhao Ziyang having been an embodiment of Western liberal values in China (which also means it breaks the fourth red flag of breaking mainstream assumptions). This is not to mention the conflicts of interest and the fact that all the evidence of what Ziyang actually did and said does not align with this claim, which are two separate points we can get to later if you disagree with the above argument.
Now obviously, just because something breaks from the commonly accepted narrative doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but according to Wikipedia rules it should be considered an exceptional claim. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be a position which was almost universal among male Chinese politicians of his era. "Zhao Ziyang having been an embodiment of Western liberal values in China" is spinning it a bit, Zhao was certainly *relatively* liberal... But as you said, he wasn't a feminist. For someone who isn't a feminist to not support the equal participation of women in politics isn't surprising, its the expected position. The equal participation of women in politics is a feminist position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No? Yes, supporting female participation in politics was/is in some places and some time periods an opinion primarily held by Feminists. However if you look at countries like China or America where some Feminist values have become normalized through decades of struggle, previously feminist ideas simply become the mainstream beliefs most everyone in society has. Ziyang was not a feminist because promoting further feminist progress was not his priority, and he quite likely was willing to sacrifice women’s issues (at least in the short term) for his broader goals of economic and political reform. However just because he is not a Feminist doesn’t mean he must necessarily actively and publicly oppose female political participation, from all the available evidence it seems like he just did not really care about women’s issues. This I think would have been the mainstream position of many of the Reformists at the time. However, there were a contingent of people who I would consider actively anti-feminist, who did oppose female participation in politics. But, they did so quietly as the Cultural Revolution had at the very least caused it so that it was the party line to purport to support Feminist struggle. Like as an example of my point, let’s look at Donald Trump. Most people (including me) would say he is not a feminist, and in my personal opinion I would even say he is a misogynist. But to my knowledge, despite all of the insane things he says, he has never gone so far as to publicly oppose all female participation in the political process.
Regardless, again, the main stream narrative of Zhao Ziyang centers around him supporting what he called “universal human values” and encouraging political and civic participation by the people. If he was actually instrumental (ie attributable) in ensuring 50% of “the people” were unable to do this, it would definitely change the mainstream perception of his views. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't say "actively and publicly oppose" "publicly oppose all female participation in the political process" or anything equivalent. Once again you are misrepresenting the content to score a point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again I feel like you are reading what I say in an overly semantic way without considering the argument I’m trying to make. In the current edit it says the ACWF sees Ziyang as attributable for the lack of women in the 13th congress, which implies active effort. It also says he has made comments, which were presumably made publicly as if they were unknown it seems likely Judd would have provided some account of how she had access to Ziyang’s private conversations and she would not have said he had made these claims openly. While the word “all” is also not included, it is still obviously implied, as for example if one says they’re going to take out the trash they typically are referring to all of it not just one piece. Similarly, if the claim is not that Ziyang opposed all forms of female participation in politics, it seems it would be important to clarify what his specific position is. While I’m sure even this response has some semantic mistakes, you must admit that the claim is at least equivalent in meaning if not in syntax.
That said, I have started a topic in the general Zhao Ziyang page as I have been talking with another editor as well, and wanted to centralize the discussion. So we can continue this conversation there. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"which were presumably made publicly as if they were unknown it seems likely Judd would have provided some account of how she had access to Ziyang’s private conversations and she would not have said he had made these claims openly." And right there is where you go from what you should be doing to WP:OR. It is not "obviously implied," again you have to twist it to get there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should take this to the general discussion page, but I don’t think you understand what WP:OR means, it is not the same as basic reading comprehension. If someone says we should write about a quote from an author who says “A dog was put down” with the context in mind that the dog was killed, that would not be WP:OR. All reading requires some level of interpretation to understand. Any reader who reads “Ziyang openly” said something would assume this means he said this thing publicly. Eternal Blue Sky (talk) 03:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They won't read “Ziyang openly” because it doesn't say “Ziyang openly” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AAAroads

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]

Refactor

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

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

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

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!

Hope you enjoy this goat!

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

New legal article

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

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]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Horse_Eye%27s_Back"