User talk:MarkH21/Archive 10

Tây Sơn dynasty
Before 1778, Tay Son is just the rebellion without the government status. In 1788, Nguyen Nhac declared himself as King of Tay Son but the Le dynasty was still existed so we could not say the Tay son represented the whole Kingdom of Dai Viet. Actually Tay son innitially restore the power of Le dynasty before Le Chieu Thong fled to China. Im making the clear reference for the page and you tired to delete it? Unnecessary anglicism reference? This page is in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorfree1011 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing up your concerns here! Also thanks for your contributions in general to history articles. I'll respond to the three separate points about the top of Tây Sơn dynasty (also by the way, please sign your talk page posts using four tildes):Yes, but the Infobox former country is for the timeframe of the actual country/state and should not include the background events (e.g. the rebellion).Regarding the status of duchy, that was added without a reference to a reliable source. Please add a reference to a reliable source that explicitly states this, in order to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability policy.The anglicism comment that I made is about the country name being Đại Việt without the added descriptive terms Kingdom of. — MarkH21talk 06:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me create new article page on new Cayman Islands Coast Guard?
Good evening MarkH21 Please can you help me create article page for the new Cayman Islands Coast Guard? You have done very well with helping me out start up the Cayman Islands Regiment and Turks & Caicos Regiment Articles the time is now for the Cayman Coast Guard to have its own page I do have the info and refs to go and build up the page just not the good enough skills to start up an article. Also one would need to be done up for Bermuda Coast Guard as well but we can do that at later time and like for the Cayman Coast Guard, I do have the info and refs for Bermuda as well. Thank You. Scottish Caymanian (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Scottish Caymanian October 08 2021 17:52 GMT
 * Sorry for the delay! Yes, I can try to help you with that soon. — MarkH21talk 15:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * no problem. Thank you very much. Let me know when your ready. - Scottish Caymanian (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You can find the draft at Draft:Cayman Islands Coast Guard. Please feel free to fill it out and modify things as needed. There is currently a redirect from Cayman Islands Coast Guard to Cayman Islands that I created a year ago, but we can replace it with the contents of this draft when it is ready. — MarkH21talk 21:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Puzzling edit summary
I was wondering if you could explain this edit summary. The thing you removed has been in the article since 2006; it was cited as a reference (with no link) in the very first version of the article in 2005. --JBL (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out! That one was a mistake on my part. I was going through the SPAs at Sun Zhiwei which had added Sun-related links to multiple articles. The link that I had just removed but, of course, was not added by these accounts. — MarkH21talk 13:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining! --JBL (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Spectrum
Is the obituary of this blog's founder encyclopedic content?--176.77.136.98 (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nhatminh1701
Does the block on this account and IP address prevent the account owner from editing in the future with a different account and IP address? --Nhatminhle817 (talk) 06:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct. You may not edit until the block is lifted from your original account . Furthermore, you are not normally permitted to create new accounts nor using IP addresses to edit (even if your original account was not blocked). You may find the instructions to request an unblock here. This must be done on your original account, and continuing edit on new accounts will only make it harder to lift your original block. — MarkH21talk 06:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Kautilya3 (talk) 00:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Cayman and Bermuda populations
Hello again. The time has come to revisit the matter of Bermuda and Cayman populations. This is where we are:

The 2021 Cayman Islands Census recorded a population of 69,656 persons: https://www.eso.ky/UserFiles/page_docums/files/uploads/cayman_islands_preliminary_census_2021_r.pdf

The 2016 Bermuda Census recorded a population of 63,917: https://www.gov.bm/sites/default/files/2016%20Census%20Report.pdf

The 2021 (same year as Cayman Census) Bermuda estimate of its own population (albeit data apparently from 2020): 63,880 https://www.gov.bm/sites/default/files/2021_Digest_of_Statistics.pdf This paper notes that "For the third consecutive year, the number of deaths exceeded the number of births, resulting in a population decline of 26"

If you want to use the World Bank most recent estimate (same year):

Cayman 2020 Estimate: 65,720 https://data.worldbank.org/country/KY

Bermuda 2020 Estimate: 63,903 https://data.worldbank.org/country/BM

The World Bank cites its sources as: 1 ) United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2019 Revision. ( 2 ) Census reports and other statistical publications from national statistical offices, ( 3 ) Eurostat: Demographic Statistics, ( 4 ) United Nations Statistical Division. Population and Vital Statistics Report ( various years ), ( 5 ) U.S. Census Bureau: International Database, and ( 6 ) Secretariat of the Pacific Community: Statistics and Demography Programme. (click the 'i' next to "Population, total")

If you want to use the CIA World Factbook 2022 estimates, as a source, it's now even more of a complete outlier:

Bermuda: 72,337 https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/bermuda/

Cayman: 64,309 https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/cayman-islands/

So, the CIA estimates Bermuda as having a higher population than Bermuda itself does, or the World Bank estimates, using all of those sources it cites. In my observation the CIA simply increases Bermuda's estimate every year, in total disregard of Bermuda's own reporting on its falling population, its annual estimates showing continued decline, these trends and figures being reflected in other sources, while persistently failing to incorporate and recognise the statistics showing that Cayman has the larger population. The CIA World Factbook says the following about how it treats population (https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/references/definitions-and-notes/):

"This entry gives an estimate from the US Bureau of the Census based on statistics from population censuses, vital statistics registration systems, or sample surveys pertaining to the recent past and on assumptions about future trends."

So the CIA World Factbook estimate is the voodoo output of the US Census Bureau, which apparently goes blind deaf and dumb when Cayman's population increases, while just giving Bermuda more and more people every year.

The CIA World Factbook is the source for this statement in the Bermuda article: "As of July 2018, Bermuda had a population of 71,176, making it the most populous of the British overseas territories.[1]" Notice how 4 years later, the CIA has added another 1,161 for Bermuda, when Bermuda itself says 'for another year, the population has fallen'?

At this point, there's no argument anymore. Bermuda has a declining population, Cayman has a growing one. Cayman overtook Bermuda in 2019, and the gap keeps growing. The statistics offices of both territories confirm this. The World Bank lags behind the actual numbers, but reflects Cayman's actual, factual status as the more populous. Only the CIA World Factbook shamans keep figuring that Bermuda has more and more people each year.

Now, you're a senior editor, very experienced, with various extra permissions reflecting your contributions etc. Please tell me what we need to do to these two articles to make them reflect the truth: Cayman has the higher population, and is the largest BOT by population; Bermuda has the smaller, and is the second-largest by population. Right now, both articles make claims that each territory has the largest population, but the weight of all the evidence is in favour of Cayman. It's time for these articles to reflect the truth, this is an encyclopedia after all. Legaleagle345 (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the well-presented statistics and reasoning. With the new census data, I think it should be fine to update the figures across those articles by using the 2021 Cayman Islands census and the 2021 Bermuda estimate. Maybe in the demographics section, it would be helpful to put a few sentences and/or endnotes (e.g. using efn) that mention the older Bermuda census as well as figures from the World Bank and CIA World Factbook. — MarkH21talk 23:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I tried editing the Bermuda article but the CIA World Factbook is introduced to the article using that erroneous population estimate and then used for many other citations. I do not have the editing ability to correct this. Cayman now estimates its population as over 78,000 (https://www.caymancompass.com/2022/08/31/caymans-population-grows-by-10-5-in-less-than-a-year/), widening the gap even more. Should I make a request for editing help somewhere and explain what it is that I want changed? I'll supply all the references if I must but I'm really looking for some help to get those articles reading as they should without breaking the syntax of the article. Legaleagle345 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

History of Europe
Hi, I do not quite understand this recent edit. The MOS:BOLDAVOID that you linked is about bold text, but you didn't remove the bold text, you removed the Europe link (which I know would usually be a MOS:OVERLINK but in this case I would probably argue that it is relevant and important enough to the article to be linked). So was just wondering if you could explain, because I'm not sure if you made a mistake or if I am misunderstanding something, so I'd rather not revert you in case I am. Thanks! --TylerBurden (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID states that Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the opening sentence of a lead. So I removed the link from the bolded text (as is also done in the first example at MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID).Yes, one alternative is to unbold the reiteration of the title in the opening sentence while preserving the link. However, it's usually easy to just wikilink the next instance of the article (Europe in this case) if the link is still relevant and important to warrant linking. Usually, one would unbold if the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence (MOS:AVOIDBOLD), but the title is used quick naturally in this case.I realize that my edit summary linked to MOS:BOLDAVOID instead of MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID, which is the immediately preceding paragraph. This shortcut target seems to have been changed from here to here by  - perhaps that's the cause for some of this confusion? — MarkH21talk 23:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yea, that makes sense. Thanks for explaning it. TylerBurden (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Vpha sock puppetry
Could you possibly take a look at Vietnamese name and List of Vietnamese inventions and discoveries, because they haven’t been properly cleaned of Vpha’s sock puppetry. The majority of edits he made to them with 118.211.76.187 went unnoticed by the admins. What happened was that his string of edits got split in two by a random edit by another editor, and when his IP got blocked, the admin only reversed the second part of his edits without noticing the much larger first part. I tried reversing them but editors unfamiliar with Vpha think I’m trolling. If unreversed, it’ll just encourage more sock puppetry from Vpha who probably thinks he pulled a fast one on Wikipedia and the admins. 34.104.0.82 (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

?
When did i personal attack? User10281129 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See your talk page, about calling other editors as acting due to "personal nationalism". — MarkH21talk 23:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It meant he was not a nationalist. I didn't say he is nationalist. User10281129 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that is the conclusion of your edit summary, but it is entirely unnecessary to say I wonder if he wanted to exaggerate Joseon's dependency on China because of his personal Chinese nationalism at all. Saying something like that may be construed by others as a personal attack or aspersion even if it is not your intention, so be careful. Editors should generally focus on the content, rather than possible motives or idealogical beliefs.Also, please indent your talk page posts. Thanks! — MarkH21talk 23:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Uriangkhadai
My apologize but I still don't get it. Why the chronicles Đại Việt sử ký toàn thư is not reliable as it is the orthodox chronicle of Vietnam in the feudal era ? On my opinion at least it is reliable to describe the Vietnamese perspective about what happened. 115.78.134.153 (talk) 05:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a significant historical reference for much of Vietnamese history. However, it is a primary source that is almost 600 years old and generally should not be used directly. Direct use of very old sources causes issues of interpretation, original research, and sythesis, which go against Wikipedia guidelines and policies.Luckily, there are many modern scholarly sources (for example, journals and books published by major university presses) that are available on this era of Vietnamese history. You can see some already in the Uriyangkhadai article. There are many that also discuss the Vietnamese perspective directly, which you could find online or in a library. These kinds of sources are considered to be the best for referencing historical content on Wikipedia.I hope that explains the practice here! Please let me know if you have any more questions. You can also find more in the Wikipedia policy and guideline pages that I have linked. — MarkH21talk 02:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!
Hello , The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:
 * There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
 * Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by using  at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)