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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Hi. Just noticed 20DEC deletion of Tibetan Political Review as a source on another page Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950#Middle Way Approach 1973 and of the edits using the source. It's a well researched and knowledgeable piece. Can you provide RSN review supporting the position it isn't RS? See also edits at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
provide RSN review supporting the position it isn't RS. The onus is on the editor wishing to add a new source to gain consensus about its reliability and due weight per WP:CHALLENGE. — MarkH21talk 12:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
academic credentialsand
citations. So far, every single editor besides you has found the source to be unreliable and the concerns to be legitimate. If 5 editors uniformly disagree with you, then you might not be on the same page as the rest of the community. Furthermore, do you understand what the WP policy about consensus? This clearly isn't a
slam dunkin the direction that you think it is.In any case, there is a clear consensus from those who have commented that the Tibetan Political Review is definitively not a reliable source for anything except statements about itself. Of course, the current consensus can change and the consensus can be broadened. Right now, it's not about whether you think it's a slam dunk or whether I disagree with you. It's about the community consensus."Economy" is a standard section title for a settlement, and tourism is just one aspect of that. It doesn't hide anything because "Tourism" is still a subsection at Nyingchi#Tourism and it currently is the only material in the "Economy" section. I don't know what you're talking about when you say
will use sources (Chinese state-run media) not as reliable as Tibetan Political Review, but I haven't commented on anything resembling that nor have I added any content from Chinese state-run media. — MarkH21talk 09:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
btw, please ask before reformatting edits at RSN. It changed the legibility of the text purposefully formatted below your lead. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
drop the false claimand we can move on. Also, please do talk into mind the feedback from WP:ANI#Pasdecomplot and refrain fom commenting on other editors' opinions (especially if it's not explicit) in the future. Hopefully you will also receive further clarification and feedback on your editing restrictions from the admins there. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asianor did I "implicitly support" it. I also did nothing
in contradiction to [...] previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313; I never commented specifically on RFA at RSN archive 313. Nor has any other single editor "supported" or "implicitly supported" the replacement of text in contradiction to what they have said at RSN archive 313 about RFA.
Hi, I understand the lack of verification of certain facts. Therefore I will clarify and hyperlink where necessary on Dreadlocks. Hope this is ok. My intention was so that the cultures and their histories aren't erased which someone had previously done. Most of the sources on that page refer to non-verifiable information such that actually seventy percent of the page could be erased in terms of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
~~~~
. — MarkH21talk 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boston Chinatown 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 Muttnick -- Muttnick (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
The article Boston Chinatown massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boston Chinatown massacre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muttnick -- Muttnick (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I appreciate your tireless work in preventing Wikipedia from vandalism and offcourse your recent work reporting Authordom, who gave me so much headache. I'm at ease finding him globally locked now. Well done my friend, well done! ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring at 2008 Tibetan unrest and bring concerns to the talk page there. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war about East Turkestan; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. --ROXANNE9090 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear MarkH21,
I saw your changes in the Wikipedia page East Turkestan. I see that you wrote about the region East Turkestan, and not about the Uyghur East Turkestan, where the page is actually intended for. I refer you to the page Xinjiang if you want to help with this region. I do also find that you write with a Chinese point of view, so please write with a neutral point of view.
Frendly greetings and I hope you had a good New Year! Roxanne — Preceding unsigned comment added by ROXANNE9090 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Taiwan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. STSC (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi. You had participated in the 30-day RfC of Sherdog.com's reliability at RSN here Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_318#Sherdog.com and in the end it was closed to be used only for some basic fight information in the absence of reliable sources such as ESPN, on a case by case basis and with that fact that additional considerations apply on top of it (option 2 or 3).
But some editors (NEDOCHAN, Cassiopeia, Squared.Circle.Boxing, and a couple more) who voted for the reliability of Sherdog.com in the RfC, still enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the most trusted source on MMA-related pages and go edit-wars for it. They are like a small organized gang of editors that have taken anyting MMA-related hostage on the Wikipedia and act like owners of the whole site. It would be nice if you could help with the enforcement of the result and consensus that were reached there since you helped reaching the consensus in the RfC. Thanks in advance.78.190.164.254 (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
They are especially active on pages Conor_McGregor, Tony Ferguson and Dan Henderson, trying to enforce the usage of Sherdog.com as the source over reliable sources such as ESPN, Fox, UFC.78.190.164.254 (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi! I have seen that you have recently merged the Black Carib article with the Garifuna article. The discussion on whether the black Carib article should be removed and become a redirection of the "Garifuna" article was never finished and no conclusion was ever reached. The Black Carib article referred to the Black Caribs of the island of St. Vincent, not the Garifuna of Central America.--Isinbill (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
formerly known as Black Caribs). I've left a comment at the merge discussion. — MarkH21talk 14:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for improving Oka–Weil theorem ! SilverMatsu (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
Hello! Thank you for alerting me that the IP self-reverted their changes! SoyokoAnis 13:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for the improvements on the Functions of several complex variables article and for clearly summarizing the proposal(WikiProject Mathematics). SilverMatsu (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gerry Stahl. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Macktheknifeau (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
On 10 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniel-Marie Chabert de Joncaire de Clausonne, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1750, Daniel-Marie Chabert de Joncaire de Clausonne built a small canal above Niagara Falls to power a sawmill? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel-Marie Chabert de Joncaire de Clausonne. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daniel-Marie Chabert de Joncaire de Clausonne), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Violence is a particular type of language
I've fulfilled your WP:RFCLOSE request. Feel free to add ANI to WP:RSP when you get the chance, and feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wet market 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Two years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Thank you for review the article to field of several complex variables. Thanks to that the article became clearer. SilverMatsu (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC) |
Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles. // Timothy :: talk |
— Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mark, I was thinking that in time of temporary undelete, the discussion page would be open to talk about the article, this is why I tried to work on that page. Later I saw your message on the "view history page" and I reverted another small change which I made later. Anyways, thank you very much for letting me know. Every day I learn something new about exciting world of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erfan2017 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The article Wet market you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wet market for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Uspn.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello, MarkH21,
You tagged pages for CSD G5 deletion where the page creator was not a blocked sockpuppet. Page creators have to be currently blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet and be the primary contributor or sole author of a page to be eligible for CSD G5 speedy deletion, you shouldn't tag pages prematurely based on suspicions or the fact that an editor has been reported to SPI. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
First of all, I want to thank you for your contributions to history on Wikipedia. In the past I was able to look things up on Wikipedia and it was mostly legit. Although, today it is full of theories, propaganda or hear says with references to links that are either broken, unrelated, or to another internet articles that is spreading the same rumors. This has been very frustrating as a reader, therefore I wasn’t able to refrain myself from editing any longer.
It appears that you have reverted my edits regarding Trần Dynasty’s origin. Based on the historical text writing by Ngô Sĩ Liên about Mr. Kính (please note that I have altered it based on the taboo tradition of not writing or speaking a deceased person’s full given name in public) the word used to describe the ancestor’s origin by the historian is ‘Mân nhân; 閩人’. This phrase can be understood as describing an improper person not adhering to Confucian’s standards, since his family was a fisherman by trade. It also refers to Mân Việt, an ancient ethnic and should not be confused with a location. Whereas Fujian is a location not an ethnicity. The phrase after from the text above reads “或曰桂林人; However, they say Quế Lâm nhân (Guilin people).” Implying that they are indigenous to the area by the time of Mr. Kính. Furthermore, 桂林人 can be understood as a proper contributing citizen as in “quế tịch, 桂籍”, a record of name of those who passed the imperial exam, or simply just a person that smells pleasant. Therefore, as a person who writes history, one cannot say for certain that Mr. Kính was from Fujian before coming to Đại Việt. Please remember that this is Vietnam’s history. Thank you for your time in reading my concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:CD40:61C0:BCA4:7113:778B:1884 (talk) 4:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Tran Ly, Tran Canh's grandfather who had led the Tran family into court politics, was the grandson of an emigrant from Fujian.Unless you can find several high-quality secondary reliable sources that directly contradict this (i.e. so that the academic consensus is what you posit), your own study of primary historical texts cannot be used for the content at Trần dynasty. — MarkH21talk 05:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mark. Thanks for acknowledging my edit - I really (really) hate reverting other people's edits when they're made in good faith, as yours was. I'm often worried my reverts on Mont Blanc might appear as WP:OWN, but I care about the subject of the article and do my best to ensure its content is as good and as well-cited as possible. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)