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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Hello MarkH21. Dr. Domic, who is 68, retired over a year ago, and is currently a part-time lecturer at Stanford University under Prof. Subhasish Mitra. Regarding your comments about Domic-Toledo, Google gives me several papers referring to both invariant and space. As far as I understand, they were among the first to prove Milnor-Wood Inequality. Your approach to review looks to me iconoclastic. Take Care. Marco60cr (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21!
I saw your contribution to the blue-green deployment article where you specified it is a kind of A/B testing, but I think this isn't always the case. Even if blue-green deployment is associated with A/B testing, blue-green deployment is actually just a method of deploying code changes - unrelated to whether there is A/B testing. My association with A/B testing is on the public side - delivering two different experiences to users, and there may be some mechanism that determines which experience the user receives, or which server handles the request. Then analysis of the users' experiences across the two different versions helps inform which version should become the main production version going forward. In contrast, blue-green deployments one of the servers is explicitly not public facing while the other is. As a consequence I think blue-green deployments are fairly unrelated to A/B testing. This isn't just my opinion, either. For example, see the article cited in the wiki article for blue-green deployment: https://web.archive.org/web/20180330100354/https://blog.christianposta.com/deploy/blue-green-deployments-a-b-testing-and-canary-releases/
This article explicitly says:
A/B testing is NOT blue-green deployments. ... The difference between blue-green deployments and A/B testing is A/B testing is for measuring functionality in the app. Blue-green deployments is about releasing new software safely and rolling back predictably.
As a result, I think it is incredibly misleading to say blue-green deployments is an "A/B testing" method of deployment, since those two ideas are orthogonal. I wanted to talk to you first before I actually undid you change, but to me your addition is misleading at best and possibly just false.
Thanks!
Laelius Linguae (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Could you please help me review my new articles? MBM Avoseh O. A. Akinyeye Abosede George Thank you. WS — Preceding unsigned comment added by WheelHelms WS (talk • contribs) 17:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It was not an accusation of sockpuppetry at all, but it was uncivil, was and is entirely withdrawn, and I have apologised to you and Sandstein on his talk page. Bookscale (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Since Singapore is a city state, wouldn't it be appropriate to include images of it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yungeditor (talk • contribs) 10:06, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, just pointing out subtly that one seemed to crib the other. I’ll go off in my corner now.... TashTish (talk) 05:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Please explain moving Eric Weinstein to draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
not enough referenced content of significance at the moment, moving to draft to incubate. After pruning out unreferenced material (and the fact that he gave a colloquium talk about unpublished results), there's little referenced content to say much about the subject. I moved it to draft space while referenced content can be added, including for the previously-unreferenced claims. — MarkH21talk 07:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
On 12 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boston Chinatown massacre, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the three gunmen involved in the 1991 Boston Chinatown massacre has not yet been found despite a "worldwide hunt"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boston Chinatown massacre. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), 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.
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
why do you keep changing my page. Everything on there is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.32.22 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello MarkH21,
The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.
New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.
Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.
Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here
16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that; my misguided attempt at showing who may have copied whom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TashTish (talk • contribs) 00:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I told you to stay off my page, yet you posted. Not interested in your your personal attacks, false accusations, harassment, and threats. Stop it. Regulate your own behaviour.Djflem (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Hey by this point, or even a long while ago, it would be best not to reply any further in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congregational Churches in Leicester or the other related ones, IMHO. I contributed to it too, but it is all too long and no one participating is going to change their mind, and everyone has made their position clear, and we should let it go. I agree with your comment that it is tiring. It will be tiring for whoever tries to close, too. :( --Doncram (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion the allegation was in such controversy that views are very much polarised.
My point is that a more accurate description to the photo is the essence to enable viewers to see the context of the debate. The reason why the HKPF was being alleged is largely because of the excessive use of deadly force without legitimate explanation and genuine need at the scenes.
As depicted in this photo, the office was pointing his firearm, which is a deadly force, to unarmed civilians, not in attempt to alleviate the confrontation but rather, an act to overpower the crowd.
Therefore my description was merely a supplementary comment on the fact of what actually happen on the scene with factual description of was was going on, which was not shown in the photo at the angle of where it was taken.
Thanks in advance for your comment. NeutrumOratio (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hello MarkH21. In the recently closed thread on "Use of racial slur" at AN/I, you say this:
"They clearly like to use the word whenever the opportunity to make a joke about anything Chinese arises."
I think that claim is a little wide of the mark and I wondered if you wanted to explain why you came to that conclusion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
chinktwice in Chinese-related jokes in two separate incidents ("Darned Chinks", "chink in your grammatical armour"). — MarkH21talk 00:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Since we are beating this drum at ANI, can you tell me why you think it's acceptable to be discussing someone's (supposed) conduct, whilst all the time nurturing incivility on the board? Not nice, belittling someone's user name, is it Marky? CassiantoTalk 20:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir u see now. Exact words of source now. Any problem please tell. Thank u. Pandya101 (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Sir tell me if source words exact copy or not. First u cancel as no exact words. Now edit cancel saying exact words not aloud. Sir please add it. Thank u. Pandya101 (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
they are bestis clearly subjective and unencyclopedic language that cannot be directly stated in Wikipedia’s voice (i.e. it has to be attributed to someone).For the follow-up, it is against Wikipedia’s copyright policy to copy exact wording or extremely close paraphrasing, essentially unless it is clearly attributed and a quote. — MarkH21talk 20:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Your edit to the article for Patrick X. Gallagher added him to Category:People from Elizabeth, New Jersey, but in a Google search I can't find a source that indicates that he was born there. Which of the sources i the article establishes Elizabeth as his place of birth? Alansohn (talk) 13:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
I found your comment on my talk page very rude. Open any video of any person touring a Chinese wet Market, and you'll see they trade Dogs, Cats, and even frogs if they have. Some dealers even have ivory tusks, Bush meat, And rhino Horns. Why are some editors like yourself completely erasing information unless a "source" is provided when a Source is not needed, unless you motives to not let the general public read that little quote that you embarrass what should be shameful practice. If there is Anything that is disruptive, its your deletion of my expansion of an article and writing threats on my talk accusing me of subjective "destructive" editing. Biomax20 (talk) 06:11, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21 "but the claims in your additions were unreferenced." No they were not, because in context every word written was tied to the word "Wet Markets" and the internet is FULL of documentation regarding "claims" which arent "Claims" but "fact". If you're having such a Hard time with "claims" and "Unreferenced" information, we live in the digital age 2020. A 10 second google on the subject will enlighten you that its FACT not CLAIM. And perhaps you could help BUILD a a article, as was the original idea of wikipedia and not DESTROY information as you are, clearly, so viciously doing. Biomax20 (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution...
Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).
Would you kindly cease harassing me with your and other editor subjective 'reference' demands and destructive article information deletion. Im a local within Libya and likely the only person editing matters on regarding my country from within my country, as neutrally and morally as possible. Your deletions, warnings and subjective demands for References are very aggressive and feel politically motivated.
Edit: This is a online, Digital encyclopedia open to the Public, for Editing. I have done nothing but good by adding information, Unlike some, who seem to only search for reasons to destroy information. If you are that irritated by missing references, please feel free, to open a new tab in your browser and check feedback for yourself, and perhaps 'HELP' edit for a greater good, rather than being toxic and slapping a warning on a contributor. Secondly, My edits on the Articles on the Battle of Tripoli, WAS referenced, from the very reliable sources, such as BBC, ALJAZEERA, AND news sites, Moreover, being a citizen of Libya, wrote and added information with respect to the article that should be mentioned, WITHIN Context of the SUBJECT. All referenced sources of information, already mentioned all the points being told within the Article. Your claims that information is referenced, feel somewhat politically motivated. Biomax20 (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution...
Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate).
unreferencedhere to mean lacking a citation.
@MarkH21: Sounds to me your edits are just politically motivated. Biomax20 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Please cease harassing me and removing information from every single article relating to Libya. I think Wikipedia has a policy on harassment too? "baseless accusations" why are you editing and deleting information from my articles then? Biomax20 (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: I could say the exact same thing regarding your opinion on "was either unreferenced or poorly formatted" being "your own personal hunch". Its been a number of days since you began latching on to any edits i did yet, and yet, you havent contributed any productive editing. Its just been destructive editing, removal of information and labeling that information as "requiring references". I am not arguing against providing references, i would happily do that, however that is very time consuming. I spent the Entire day fixing the "Attack on Tripoli airport" article to deny you any excuse to delete the information. And yes, i accused you of suspected political motivation, because you havent provided anything constructive to any of the subjects. Not on the Tripoli Airport subject, and not on the RADA deterrence force article. As a Libyan, far too many controversies and crimes with people trying to sweep information under the carpet, and your "Destructive" editing or rule nagging isn't boding well. You havent even engaged in on the Article talk page to discuss editing. I could have "satisfied" your personal requirements for "Encyclopedic" content as you said it. - I am just being Frank with you. As for "poorly formatted", you are more than welcome to contribute with your superior formatting skills providing it isnt destructive, and doesnt include constant nagging that my piece of information is "Unsatisfactory" according to your "Encyclopedic requirements". Biomax20 (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I will revert all the information Vandalization and attempt to lock this articleand
Your pathetic attempts to sweep warcrimes under the rug will NOT succeedis not particularly conducive to article talk page discussion, nor does it inspire confidence in your ability to edit neutrally. — MarkH21talk 19:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Well then please to do what wikipedia was designed to do, that is adding in citation and reference, that is if you bothered with the article with the intent on improving it rather than using a set of rules for destructive behavior which you are clearly engaged in doing. You are acting as wikipedia police, rather than a constructive editor. Theres no such thing as "personal hunch". There is Claim, and there is Google. Go google a claim made by a person if you have THAT much of a problem with an unreferenced piece sentence. "That's how we help ensure neutrality and rigor in the material on Wikipedia." No thats how you help send the article to oblivion, as was the case when i first opened the Attack on Tripoli airport article, which had all information from it removed from Edits from people who had their own little opinions on what should be edited. To you its "Encyclopedic", To me, a Libya, this is a matter of war crimes and Vital information that needs to be exposed. If it was unreferenced, you could have simply asked in the Talk page. Or placed "Citation needed" as you did recently, rather than DELETING. That is DESTRUCTIVE. Also " unreferenced biased content", This phrase right here, is why people think your edits are politically motivated. Either way, i will be editing with references, and i will be denying you excuses for further destructive editing because i understand the subject, because i've lived through it. Kindly, again, cease harassing me. The only reason information wasnt "Referenced" according to your standards is just because i was lazy. Biomax20 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. It's very simple. There's nothing about being destructive. It doesn't take much to add something back once you find a reference.However, if you continue to add uncited content and continue to react and accuse others of harassment and political motivation when warned by other editors, you may find yourself blocked by an administrator. This is not a threat from me, I am informing you because I think that you are a good-faith editor but are slightly defensive on controversial issues.Finally, I did not call your edits
unreferenced biased content. I said that you should be more concerned with (hypothetical / other) editors adding unreferenced biased content.Don't be
lazy, and stop throwing around accusations of harassment, vandalism, and political motivation. My warnings to you are meant to be constructive and prevent avoidable and unpleasant further consequences. — MarkH21talk 19:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Actions speak louder than words. Your actions involved policing wikipedia policies, and removing information. You havent provided any reasoning behind deleting edits other than calling up "Wikipedias policies". What did you add to those articles? Near to nothing. ( Thank you for the grammar and other helpful edits, albeit minor CONSTRUCTIVE edits ). "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution", Wikipedia doesnt specify that you should Delete said information. It specifies that the claimant has the burden to provide a source. And before engaging in destructive behaviour, such as "Deletion" of information which, with respect, seems to fly over your head, and will only create conflict by acting as Wikipedia censor police, could have atleast added a "Citation needed" tag, or a note or contacted me on Talk page, and i would have happily added a source to the 'claims'. This is the second argument in context that i am trying to relay to you. Biomax20 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
calling up "Wikipedias policies"is the strongest reason to make an edit. That's what Wikipedia is built upon, and
Going against the principles set out on these pages, particularly policy pages, is unlikely to prove acceptableper WP:ENFORCEMENT. Again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with removing unreferenced content. It is not considered negatively destructive, and can be just as easily restored once a source is found. If you actually read the policy, it clearly states
Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. In fact, the onus for adding even verifiable information is on those adding disputed content, per WP:ONUS.Follow this advice closely: follow Wikipedia policies and don't throw around unsupported accusations editors that warn you of breaches of policy. This is the last time that I will tell you this directly outside of a report at an appropriate centralized noticeboard, since further repeating of these core tenets may not resolve these issues. — MarkH21talk 20:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Theres a fine thin line, between an editor that takes time reading a "Source" and another that fails to read already provided sources claiming that theres "no source" because said editor wasnt spoon fed the exact phrase, deleting information with a baseless claim that something isnt cited or "Sourced". Example The Cathedral of Tripoli article. I provided a source of Information that came from a researcher who had information in Italian, that was very difficult to come by because of the scarcity of Information. I am surprised to you haven't deleted the entire article and frankly expected you to damage it. With that being said, please dont. Biomax20 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
already provided sourcesare in here or here. Oh there are none, except some YouTube links in the latter that don't say what was added.Anyways, we're done here. I hope you got the message that multiple editors have been telling you. Happy editing. — MarkH21talk 20:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi. The sections disappeared from WP:ANI. I concur, please move it to both 'l' and the talk pages too. Thank you, sir. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Would you take a look at the article now?--5.204.25.239 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Golden Dragon massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure about this message. I had responded about those edits of yours on the appropriate section per here. Can you respond to that section instead so that we can keep things at one place? Orientls (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The article Golden Dragon massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Golden Dragon massacre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Vami IV -- Vami IV (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)