User talk:MarkH21/Archive 4

Antun Domic
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)
 * You need to provide a reliable reference demonstrating these facts. Your claim about the Milnor–Wood inequality is dubious considering that it refers to a theorem proved by Milnor in 1958 and a theorem proved by Wood in 1971. — MarkH21talk 10:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 2018, Oskar Garcia-Prada in "Higgs bundles and higher Teichmueller spaces" (https://grk1670.math.uni-hamburg.de/higgs2018/Higgs-Garcia-Prada.pdf) : in the context of representations the inequality|τ| ≤rk(G/H)(2g−2), goes back to Milnor [Mil58], who studies the case G= SL(2,R), as mentioned above, and was proved in various cases in [Woo71,Dup78,DT87,CO03], and in general by Burger–Iozzi–Wienhard [BIW10]. Take Care. Marco60cr (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, and that's different from what was written in the article before. They proved one of the real semisimple Lie group cases for G. That's something that can be said in the article. The previous content about the Toledo invariant and its role with the Higgs bundle is not directly connected to Domic. — MarkH21talk 12:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Blue-green deployments are not a form of A/B testing
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)
 * Thanks for pointing this out! Yes, it would be good to explain the differences here in the article itself. Be sure to use a reliable source though, since the one you linked is a blog. — MarkH21talk 16:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

ARTICLE REVIEW
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)

Apology
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)

Singapore not just a country?
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)
 * Yes it's a city state, but its status as a country supersedes its status as a city in some respect, which is why we use Template:Infobox country instead of Template:Infobox settlement.If you want to add images of scenery for Singapore (or any country), you'd need to ask on Template talk:Infobox country for consensus to allow for scenic images and to add an image parameter. My understanding is that the existing consensus is against having such images for countries. — MarkH21talk 10:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Death of Kobe Bryant
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)

Eric Weinstein
Please explain moving Eric Weinstein to draft. ☆ Bri (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason that I gave in the move was 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)
 * That is contrary to WP:DEL-REASON and consensus was recently reached that it should be kept (Articles for deletion/Eric Weinstein). ☆ Bri (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a deletion, i.e. not applicable to WP:DEL-REASON. However, I didn't notice the AfD – that's my bad. I'll move it back. Thanks for the notice! — MarkH21talk 07:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Boston Chinatown massacre
— Maile (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

changeing edits
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)
 * Because there are no references, which are required by Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability. — MarkH21talk 04:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020
Hello ,

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.
 * Source Guide Discussion

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.
 * Redirects


 * Discussions and Resources
 * There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
 * A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
 * A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
 * A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

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.
 * Refresher

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)

Re 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash
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)

New page reviewer granted
Hi MarkH21. Your account has been added to the " " 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)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

2nd warning: Stay off my talk page
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)
 * Nonsense, I posted once to acknowledge that I won’t post on your talk page again. Refuting a personal attack is not a personal attack. Learn the policies and guidelines here. Reread them especially when four other editors, some uninvolved, have told you that you’re behaving inappropriately — MarkH21talk 20:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

enuf, right?
Hey by this point, or even a long while ago, it would be best not to reply any further in 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)
 * Thanks - it’s sound advice. It’s just hard to not respond to blatant false statements or clear disruptive editing. Really unfortunate AfD discussions over relatively benign issues with a variety of simple fixes. — MarkH21talk 06:55, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I am not perfect at taking my own advice.  But I like Coolabahapple comment, coolish without naming names, not so direct/kludgy/personal as many of my past interventions.  Probably it is healthier not to get into personalish back-and-forth stuff.  But then i would like to be productive in actually influencing people, however how do that when you actually seriously disagree with their judgment?  People are pesky and seem to get riled up when contradicted, oh well. Maybe i should play Microsoft Solitaire instead? :) --Doncram (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's easier to comment like when you're uninvolved. Also, it's fine if someone gets riled up when they're contradicted. It's not fine when someone is disruptive and hypocritical . With Coolabahapple being the fourth separate editor to admonish the behavior, hopefully it's done now.If you observe the AfDs, the discussion between the other editors have largely been civil and productive. Unfortunate that most of the text in the AfD isn't actually that. — MarkH21talk 23:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Review the description of captioned photo
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Hong_Kong_Police_shot_citizens_with_happy_face.jpg

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)


 * I understand what you mean, and I agree that a photo depicting such an incident would be noteworthy for the article. However, the image does not show an officer pointing his firearm at unarmed civilians; there are no civilians in the photo itself and the firearm is not fully raised. Just from the photo itself, one cannot tell if the firearm is pointed at anyone.
 * Do you have reliable sources stating that this specific photo is in fact the situation that you described? It has to be certain through reliable sources that in the moment this photo is taken, the officer is pointing the firearm at a civilian if such a description is to be used in the caption. For instance, it may not be enough if a reliable source describes such an incident but just displays the image on the page without actually linking the two together. — MarkH21talk 00:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Recent discussion
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)
 * I don't think prolonging this discussion will lead to anywhere positive. Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a shame. I was hoping Mark might want to offer his own thoughts on the subject. Many thanks for your advice. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My wording was perhaps hyperbolic, but it was based on the observation that you used chink twice in Chinese-related jokes in two separate incidents . — MarkH21talk 00:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, Mark. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
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?  Cassianto Talk  20:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m not condoning the name used by the editor, but just pointing out that directly editing another editor’s comment after being reverted is prohibited per WP:REFACTOR. But doing here exactly what you are protesting there doesn’t help anyone. — MarkH21talk 20:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that civility is a policy and your effort is, well, nothing really. Just something dreamt up by a do-gooder who's forgotten what an encyclopedia is. You need to get your priorities right.  Cassianto Talk  21:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Directly editing an editor’s comment is unlikely to resolve incivility issues though. It only escalates. You’ll find that I asked the editor to redact the username shortening. — MarkH21talk 21:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Belittling someone's username, and following it with a PA, is likely to increase incivility, wouldn't you agree?  Cassianto Talk  21:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point is that both actions were likely to escalate issues. Obviously one more than the other, but we can only directly control our response. — MarkH21talk 21:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Kashmiri Pandits
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)
 * The original they are best is 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)

Source for birthplace of Patrick X. Gallagher
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 had noticed that the birthplace was added to the German Wikipedia article and was referenced to, so I transferred it over to the article here. I didn’t check this source myself though. — MarkH21talk 19:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I had found American Men and Women of Science in a Snippet view on Google Books, but I was unable to confirm his birthplace. I will check further. You seem to have access to a deep library of sources. Could you try to look a little deeper, perhaps for an obituary? Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Your accusation of disruptive editing and removing 700 points of information
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)
 * All content must be verifiable through reliable sources per Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability, and the burden is on the editor adding information to provide references. That’s what all three warnings on your talk page are about.I am not disputing that there was illegal wildlife trade occurring in some Chinese wet markets, but the claims in your additions were unreferenced. That’s it. — MarkH21talk 07:03, 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)
 * Please carefully read the policy, which I did not make up myself: "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)."
 * It doesn’t matter if you think that someone can find the information you added by searching for it online themselves. You have to add a citation. — MarkH21talk 17:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Your incessant harassment and demands about 'references'
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)
 * Please carefully read the policy, which I did not make up myself: "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)."
 * It doesn’t matter if you think that someone can find the information you added by searching for it online themselves. You have to add a citation. We use unreferenced here to mean lacking a citation.
 * On the Battle of Tripoli Airport edit, I did not remove anything that was properly referenced, except for the three YouTube links. If the news source does not directly say something, you cannot personally infer information and write your interpretation by the policy against original research and synthesis. Furthermore, your edit misrepresented what is cited to the existing LA Times reference, by adding claims immediately before it.
 * Wikipedia relies on citations. Please carefully cite information and avoid adding your own interpretation of what is written in reliable sources. — MarkH21talk 17:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds to me your edits are just politically motivated. Biomax20 (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia’s policy on personal attacks before making further baseless accusations of political POV editing, in addition to WP:BURDEN which you have still not followed. — MarkH21talk

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)
 * You repeatedly added content that was either unreferenced or poorly formatted, the former being a more serious offense against Wikipedia policies. Accusing editors of politically motivated POV edits with nothing but your own personal hunch is even more egregious. — MarkH21talk 19:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

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)
 * Err, content that does not have a supporting citation just does not have a supporting citation. It can't be a personal hunch if there's literally no citation.Unreferenced content in a controversial topic can be just as damaging as adding content. Per Wikipedia policy at WP:CHALLENGE, the burden is on the editor adding the material to add the citations, not the editor challenging it. That's how we help ensure neutrality and rigor in the material on Wikipedia.Something that should be more alarming to you is the addition of unreferenced biased content, not the removal of unreferenced content in the name of verifiability.On a final note, comments like I will revert all the information Vandalization and attempt to lock this article and Your pathetic attempts to sweep warcrimes under the rug will NOT succeed is 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)

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)
 * Listen, I'm trying to explain Wikipedia's policy for your and everyone else's benefit. It is not just my interpretation; the policy has been decided by consensus from a very large group of experienced editors: 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)

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)
 * I hope you realize that 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 acceptable per 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)
 * You'll have to explain where the already provided sources are in or . 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)

Sudais page
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)
 * It's still there (fifth section at the moment), but I'll go ahead and move it now. — MarkH21talk 19:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. -- Avi (talk) 04:16, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian Spectrum
Would you take a look at the article now?--5.204.25.239 (talk) 07:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks.--84.224.163.158 (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear UserMarkH21, could I ask you, please, to discuss the George Soros quote on Hungarian Spectrum with me on my or your or the Hungarian Spectrum talk page (or by email for Stevan Harnad instead of repeatedly deleting it at the request of 5.204.25.239? We seem to disagree about its relevance, so let's discuss it. Cheers --User:Harnad (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial edit has before the anonymous editor left the message above, and indeed the timing of the second edit was coincidental with the above post which I have not engaged with. Moving to article talk. — MarkH21talk 21:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Golden Dragon massacre
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)

Responses on talk page
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)
 * Oh I didn't notice that you also commented in the other section in the same edit. The edit warring undid those changes without any explanation in the edit summaries or otherwise though. — MarkH21talk 10:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Golden Dragon massacre
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)