![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
As an editor involved in the wording of WP:ETHNICITY, I can tell you that the primary reason it was written as stated was specifically to avoid the "X-born Y" construction. All biographies are intended to have a single nationality in the lead sentence. This is supposed to be the nationality held at the time the subject did the work for which they became notable. Using "X-born Y' is incorrect and discouraged. That's the main point of WP:ETHNICITY. The second point was to avoid national appropriation, which leads to edit wars. That is why it is specifically stated that we use the nationality at time of the work which became notable, and not current nationality. Skyerise ( talk) 19:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello MarkH21. I'll first apologize for not being as savvy with Wikipedia editing as I'd like to be. Not even sure this is how to reach you properly. I created a Wiki page for my partner Samuel W. Gailey. I have clear citations and articles and linked wiki pages. It is not a stretch that he is a public figure (author) of note and many more less-substantiated authors exist. So, my question is why did you delete the page? A lot of hours went into it. Is it because I am related to him? Should we hire someone to create his wiki page? Or is that not permitted as well? Thank you in advance for your time and wisdom, Ayncg ˜˜˜˜
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article to submit it for review.By disrupting editing with your damaging rubish challenges and demands for citations especially for the RADA special deterrence force issue in Libya. I was there during that raid. I added all information as it happened.
You deleted all of it because it doesnt satisfy your stupid policies. Thats censorship and foul play promoting Islamist terror police just because you decided to target that specific article with your demands for "valid sources". Go read up news if you want valid sources, they exist Biomax20 ( talk) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You basically did nothing good for the article except go around it disruptively removing information, not ammending, or adding better information. That is glorified vandalism. Biomax20 ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
censorship and foul play promoting Islamist terror policeis utter nonsense. If the sources exist, then cite them when you add material. It doesn't matter if it's about the Libyan Civil War or about the founder of a cake shop in Paris. If you can't be bothered to cite sources upon request then don't add material to articles, regardless of topic. — MarkH21 talk 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. User Amigao has been redefining 'invasion' as 'annexation' and is currently under review for edit warring. User has also been basically stalking me through pages recently and disrupting editing. Possibly, you didn't read the User's text before reverting, since I edited text to follow page's subject, which is criticism of China's sinicization. Subject is not 'China defends sinicization', which is the POV of User's text. Would you also take a moment and explain the revert so I understand? Thanks. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 18:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This addition (after you plead for calm) is beyond the pale, half-a-step removed from this personal attack I experienced in the spring. You can reasonably expect an AN/I filing on them within the day, but not this morning (North America EDT) as it was foul enough already to awake to that BS. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 13:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
For the initial work on and laying the foundations of Depsang plains. DTM ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Hong Kong protesters. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Hong Kong protesters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
RZuo (
talk) 08:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop reverting my edits. Stop trying to force a toxic Eurocentric and Sinocentric viewpoint. Stop abusing your Wikipedia privileges. 115.64.55.137 ( talk) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
imply a relationship where none existsin the original cited reference here. That is against the policy against synthesis and the guideline against editorializing.This has literally nothing to do with whether you're Vietnamese or whether you believe anyone else is a Eurocentric Sinocentric whatever. — MarkH21 talk 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mark, what do you think ? /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.194.183 ( talk) 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just wondering, how is a reputation for fact checking established exactly? – 2. O. Boxing 19:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mark, I did a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire and I have a minor question on one of the three hooks. Please comment there. Thanks! Flibirigit ( talk) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Instead of reverting go to the talk page, just a reminder not to edit war on Xinjiang re-education camp. Thanks. Vallee01 ( talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
You definitely deserve this for helping me since I can't edit the page right now. If only the world was as kind! 7645ERB ( talk) 18:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
On 29 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire convinced several Iroquois tribes to ally with the French against the English in 1711 through song? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Now due to the whole General-Plan OST hunger plan. The Nazis were attempting to do reputable scholars do consider the Siege of Leningrad, a genocide even on the main page for Leningrad. I checked out the sources and they do confirm it can you add this for me I can't right now due to the extended confirm protection.
What the sources say The battle for Leningrad and the 872-day blockade of the city by German armies and their Finnish allies during the Second World War rank among the most horrific events in world history. Next to the Holocaust, the Leningrad siege was the greatest act of genocide in Europe during the Second World War. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm646
Its the 2 to last cite
https://books.google.com/books?id=pkBH3LlRYeUC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false
Timo Vihavainen calls it a genocide /info/en/?search=Timo_Vihavainen
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44936469?seq=1
For the death toll I think we should use whats used on the main page for Leningrad and have it on the chart like it was with GPO. 642,000 during the siege, 400,000 at evacuations 1 million Glantz, David (2001), The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror, Zenith Press, Osceola, WI, ISBN 0-7603-0941-8 page 179. I think this would be a good replacement since this event is mentioned specifically as genocide in reputable sources.
7645ERB (
talk) 07:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
One more thing on the chart in the Holodomor box the code is like leaking out. {{refn|group=N|name=Holodomor question| /info/en/?search=List_of_genocides_by_death_toll. 7645ERB ( talk) 04:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I like exploring Wikipedia and came across your report and on this page a ip was blocked /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2601:601:1501:1890:7560:929F:F164:2734 and a new one. Was acting the same way as the one Ip who you pointed out as being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=985841790&oldid=985511507 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hahilasbuya hope this helps. 7645ERB ( talk) 04:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
On 29 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cecilia Chiang, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Jayron 32 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
non-discreteto
discretein Apeirogon#Classification of Euclidean apeirogons. The original sentence was added by David Eppstein in this edit, so perhaps he could clarify whether the original intended phrasing was indeed
non-discrete. It does seem that it should be a discrete set, but one could just as easily create a non-discrete realization. The choice of topology for a realization isn't really important, since apeirogons are not inherently topological. — MarkH21 talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
countablyinfinite set of vertices can be a non-discrete subset of the Euclidean plane with the usual topology... Could you give me another example, in which it would be more understandable, please?
I believe my sub-article on the Presidential Election of 2020 is good to go. It includes a neutral tone, is balanced, and includes authoritative sources such as Politico and The Independent. Thank you for bringing to my attention the Post Millennial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keving.91 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
blacklistat all. — MarkH21 talk 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for putting BNT162b2 through the In the News process, including the nomination, conversation, and article updates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello MarkH21,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like some Vietnamese angry crusader. I crossed paths with him/her, and now I'm being reverted for no reason on a page s/he absolutely has no interest in, Moab. Or did you just give up once you noticed you're dealing with a bully? Thanks, Arminden ( talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
As an editor involved in the wording of WP:ETHNICITY, I can tell you that the primary reason it was written as stated was specifically to avoid the "X-born Y" construction. All biographies are intended to have a single nationality in the lead sentence. This is supposed to be the nationality held at the time the subject did the work for which they became notable. Using "X-born Y' is incorrect and discouraged. That's the main point of WP:ETHNICITY. The second point was to avoid national appropriation, which leads to edit wars. That is why it is specifically stated that we use the nationality at time of the work which became notable, and not current nationality. Skyerise ( talk) 19:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello MarkH21. I'll first apologize for not being as savvy with Wikipedia editing as I'd like to be. Not even sure this is how to reach you properly. I created a Wiki page for my partner Samuel W. Gailey. I have clear citations and articles and linked wiki pages. It is not a stretch that he is a public figure (author) of note and many more less-substantiated authors exist. So, my question is why did you delete the page? A lot of hours went into it. Is it because I am related to him? Should we hire someone to create his wiki page? Or is that not permitted as well? Thank you in advance for your time and wisdom, Ayncg ˜˜˜˜
{{subst:submit}}
to the top of the article to submit it for review.By disrupting editing with your damaging rubish challenges and demands for citations especially for the RADA special deterrence force issue in Libya. I was there during that raid. I added all information as it happened.
You deleted all of it because it doesnt satisfy your stupid policies. Thats censorship and foul play promoting Islamist terror police just because you decided to target that specific article with your demands for "valid sources". Go read up news if you want valid sources, they exist Biomax20 ( talk) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
You basically did nothing good for the article except go around it disruptively removing information, not ammending, or adding better information. That is glorified vandalism. Biomax20 ( talk) 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
censorship and foul play promoting Islamist terror policeis utter nonsense. If the sources exist, then cite them when you add material. It doesn't matter if it's about the Libyan Civil War or about the founder of a cake shop in Paris. If you can't be bothered to cite sources upon request then don't add material to articles, regardless of topic. — MarkH21 talk 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi. User Amigao has been redefining 'invasion' as 'annexation' and is currently under review for edit warring. User has also been basically stalking me through pages recently and disrupting editing. Possibly, you didn't read the User's text before reverting, since I edited text to follow page's subject, which is criticism of China's sinicization. Subject is not 'China defends sinicization', which is the POV of User's text. Would you also take a moment and explain the revert so I understand? Thanks. Pasdecomplot ( talk) 18:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This addition (after you plead for calm) is beyond the pale, half-a-step removed from this personal attack I experienced in the spring. You can reasonably expect an AN/I filing on them within the day, but not this morning (North America EDT) as it was foul enough already to awake to that BS. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 13:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Teamwork Barnstar |
For the initial work on and laying the foundations of Depsang plains. DTM ( talk) 07:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC) |
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Hong Kong protesters. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30#Hong Kong protesters until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
RZuo (
talk) 08:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Stop reverting my edits. Stop trying to force a toxic Eurocentric and Sinocentric viewpoint. Stop abusing your Wikipedia privileges. 115.64.55.137 ( talk) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
imply a relationship where none existsin the original cited reference here. That is against the policy against synthesis and the guideline against editorializing.This has literally nothing to do with whether you're Vietnamese or whether you believe anyone else is a Eurocentric Sinocentric whatever. — MarkH21 talk 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Mark, what do you think ? /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.194.183 ( talk) 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I was just wondering, how is a reputation for fact checking established exactly? – 2. O. Boxing 19:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mark, I did a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire and I have a minor question on one of the three hooks. Please comment there. Thanks! Flibirigit ( talk) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Instead of reverting go to the talk page, just a reminder not to edit war on Xinjiang re-education camp. Thanks. Vallee01 ( talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
You definitely deserve this for helping me since I can't edit the page right now. If only the world was as kind! 7645ERB ( talk) 18:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
On 29 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire convinced several Iroquois tribes to ally with the French against the English in 1711 through song? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Now due to the whole General-Plan OST hunger plan. The Nazis were attempting to do reputable scholars do consider the Siege of Leningrad, a genocide even on the main page for Leningrad. I checked out the sources and they do confirm it can you add this for me I can't right now due to the extended confirm protection.
What the sources say The battle for Leningrad and the 872-day blockade of the city by German armies and their Finnish allies during the Second World War rank among the most horrific events in world history. Next to the Holocaust, the Leningrad siege was the greatest act of genocide in Europe during the Second World War. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm646
Its the 2 to last cite
https://books.google.com/books?id=pkBH3LlRYeUC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false
Timo Vihavainen calls it a genocide /info/en/?search=Timo_Vihavainen
https://www.jstor.org/stable/44936469?seq=1
For the death toll I think we should use whats used on the main page for Leningrad and have it on the chart like it was with GPO. 642,000 during the siege, 400,000 at evacuations 1 million Glantz, David (2001), The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror, Zenith Press, Osceola, WI, ISBN 0-7603-0941-8 page 179. I think this would be a good replacement since this event is mentioned specifically as genocide in reputable sources.
7645ERB (
talk) 07:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
One more thing on the chart in the Holodomor box the code is like leaking out. {{refn|group=N|name=Holodomor question| /info/en/?search=List_of_genocides_by_death_toll. 7645ERB ( talk) 04:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I like exploring Wikipedia and came across your report and on this page a ip was blocked /info/en/?search=Special:Contributions/2601:601:1501:1890:7560:929F:F164:2734 and a new one. Was acting the same way as the one Ip who you pointed out as being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=985841790&oldid=985511507 /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hahilasbuya hope this helps. 7645ERB ( talk) 04:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
On 29 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cecilia Chiang, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Jayron 32 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
non-discreteto
discretein Apeirogon#Classification of Euclidean apeirogons. The original sentence was added by David Eppstein in this edit, so perhaps he could clarify whether the original intended phrasing was indeed
non-discrete. It does seem that it should be a discrete set, but one could just as easily create a non-discrete realization. The choice of topology for a realization isn't really important, since apeirogons are not inherently topological. — MarkH21 talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
countablyinfinite set of vertices can be a non-discrete subset of the Euclidean plane with the usual topology... Could you give me another example, in which it would be more understandable, please?
I believe my sub-article on the Presidential Election of 2020 is good to go. It includes a neutral tone, is balanced, and includes authoritative sources such as Politico and The Independent. Thank you for bringing to my attention the Post Millennial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keving.91 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
blacklistat all. — MarkH21 talk 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for putting BNT162b2 through the In the News process, including the nomination, conversation, and article updates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC) |
Hello MarkH21,
It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III ( talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill ( talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 ( talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 ( talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG ( talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany ( talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven ( talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra ( talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren ( talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes ( talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. It looks like some Vietnamese angry crusader. I crossed paths with him/her, and now I'm being reverted for no reason on a page s/he absolutely has no interest in, Moab. Or did you just give up once you noticed you're dealing with a bully? Thanks, Arminden ( talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)