User talk:MarkH21/Archive 8

Nationality
As an editor involved in the wording of WP:ETHNICITY, I can tell you that the primary reason it was written as stated was specifically to avoid the "X-born Y" construction. All biographies are intended to have a single nationality in the lead sentence. This is supposed to be the nationality held at the time the subject did the work for which they became notable. Using "X-born Y' is incorrect and discouraged. That's the main point of WP:ETHNICITY. The second point was to avoid national appropriation, which leads to edit wars. That is why it is specifically stated that we use the nationality at time of the work which became notable, and not current nationality. Skyerise (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha I just opened a discussion at Talk:Shing-Tung Yau at the same time that you opened this. Hmm, WP:ETHNICITY doesn’t say anything about only stating a single nationality nor does it mention anything about the "X-born Y" construction though. It excludes the first or second nationality if it's not relevant to notability, but does not exclude mentioning both if they’re both relevant to notability.In this case, it’s someone who gained notability under their initial nationality and done significant notable work under their second nationality. Why should that exclude their second nationality? — MarkH21talk 19:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So we don’t have parallel discussions on the same thing, let’s focus on Talk:Shing-Tung Yau. — MarkH21talk 19:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Okay. As a heads-up, you've made 2 reverts today. I'm not going to change it again, but I don't want either of us to pass the line into edit warring... Skyerise (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. It should be apparent that my 3rd revert was consensus between both of us. Since I can no longer formally do so, could you expand the "US" that you just added into "United States" per MOS:NOTUSA? No worries if not. I can get to it later; I’m planning on finding references for several of the currently-unreferenced statements in the article. — MarkH21talk 20:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your Deletion of page Samuel W. Gailey
Hello MarkH21. I'll first apologize for not being as savvy with Wikipedia editing as I'd like to be. Not even sure this is how to reach you properly. I created a Wiki page for my partner Samuel W. Gailey. I have clear citations and articles and linked wiki pages. It is not a stretch that he is a public figure (author) of note and many more less-substantiated authors exist. So, my question is why did you delete the page? A lot of hours went into it. Is it because I am related to him? Should we hire someone to create his wiki page? Or is that not permitted as well? Thank you in advance for your time and wisdom, Ayncg ˜˜˜˜
 * Hi, I didn’t delete the article (I don’t have that ability as I'm not an admin), but I moved it to draft space at Draft:Samuel W. Gailey because the article had almost no sources. In order to move the draft back to the main article space, it should satisfy Wikipedia's policies and the subject should satisfy one of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. In this case, this would mean that either:
 * there are multiple independent secondary reliable sources that have significant coverage of Samuel W. Bailey himself (WP:BASIC),
 * he received a major award (WP:ANYBIO), or
 * there is a reliable source showing that he satisfies one of the points in WP:NAUTHOR.
 * If you think that the article satisfies one of those criteria and is well-referenced with citations for its claims, then you can add  to the top of the article to submit it for review.
 * If you are related to the subject, then you are suggested to publicly declare your conflict of interest. I suggest, as strongly as possible, not to pay anyone to edit the article both on monetary grounds and legal grounds. If you decide to do so, the rules are here, but the Wikipedia community does not take violations regarding paid editing lightly. — MarkH21talk 09:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * @MarkH21 Thank you for the advice and clarification. I actually did not know it was illegal to pay a third party to create a wiki page to bypass my conflict of interest. Learning a ton here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayncg (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! Paid editing is not illegal and is permitted, but there are very strict policies around it. I wouldn’t recommend it, but it’s not completely forbidden. — MarkH21talk 14:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You make a great disservice to youth and people in Libya - Tripoli
By disrupting editing with your damaging rubish challenges and demands for citations especially for the RADA special deterrence force issue in Libya. I was there during that raid. I added all information as it happened.

You deleted all of it because it doesnt satisfy your stupid policies. Thats censorship and foul play promoting Islamist terror police just because you decided to target that specific article with your demands for "valid sources". Go read up news if you want valid sources, they exist Biomax20 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

You basically did nothing good for the article except go around it disruptively removing information, not ammending, or adding better information. That is glorified vandalism. Biomax20 (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia policy of verifiability is not "my policy". It's the community's policy that all are expected to follow. If you think that Wikipedia's policies are stupid, that's on you disagreeing with the entire Wikipedia community's consensus on its standards.Equating an editor asking that you add citations to your content additions with censorship and foul play promoting Islamist terror police is utter nonsense. If the sources exist, then cite them when you add material. It doesn't matter if it's about the Libyan Civil War or about the founder of a cake shop in Paris. If you can't be bothered to cite sources upon request then don't add material to articles, regardless of topic. — MarkH21talk 23:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Well its really convenient to community police articles that i edit specifically regarding the Libyan civil war and drop a nice
 * "Oh this is unsourced therefore must be removed" during heated civil war in my country, especially factual information and intentionally suppressed information. Guess "good faith" editing flew over your head. How is one supposed to cover controversial events when no one dares formally publicize information out of fear. Oh hey yeah lets apply First world bookworm rules to third world civil wars cuz glorious policies Biomax20 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, removing / tagging unreferenced material is not the same thing as assuming bad faith. They’re completely independent things. Someone can add unreferenced content in good faith, but it can be challenged for verifiability in good faith as well.I have great sympathy for the Libyan people and the country's current state of affairs, but I am not applying the community policy solely to matters concerning the Libyan Civil War. It doesn’t matter if it’s about Libya, if it was added by you, or whether the topic is about a developed country. This is a policy that is universal across Wikipedia.All material should be referenced to reliable source, especially controversial material; if it's not publicly available information from reliable sources then it can't be on Wikipedia. This is a core pillar of Wikipedia. Sorry you don’t appreciate that, but Wikipedia is explicitly not a place to right great wrongs. This has been explained ad nauseum so I do not intend on belaboring this point further. — MarkH21talk 21:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Reason for revert?
Hi. User Amigao has been redefining 'invasion' as 'annexation' and is currently under review for edit warring. User has also been basically stalking me through pages recently and disrupting editing. Possibly, you didn't read the User's text before reverting, since I edited text to follow page's subject, which is criticism of China's sinicization. Subject is not 'China defends sinicization', which is the POV of User's text. Would you also take a moment and explain the revert so I understand? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the bother, but I was notified you made a reversion; looked at reversion; then looked at page. Page doesn't seem to have been reverted...hum. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pasdecomplot (talk • contribs) 18:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

PAs at RSN
This addition (after you plead for calm) is beyond the pale, half-a-step removed from this personal attack I experienced in the spring. You can reasonably expect an AN/I filing on them within the day, but not this morning (North America EDT) as it was foul enough already to awake to that BS. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 13:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks, and kudos to you too! Hopefully we will see such real-world conflicts peacefully resolved soon, so there is less to write about :) — MarkH21talk 19:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"Hong Kong protesters" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hong Kong protesters. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. RZuo (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Culture talks
Stop reverting my edits. Stop trying to force a toxic Eurocentric and Sinocentric viewpoint. Stop abusing your Wikipedia privileges. 115.64.55.137 (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t matter who you are, I told you that cannot revert more than three times. You also cannot WP:EDITORIALIZE / insert material not in the cited sources. These are basic Wikipedia policies.You are distorting cited material and you still have not addressed the poor re-sectioning material that has been explained to you at Talk:Culture of Vietnam. — MarkH21talk 20:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not distorting history. You are the one distorting history. You are the one trying to lay claim to the Vietnamese. Might as well start a war and take the Paracel and Spratly Islands too eh? I am not scared of you, you mean bully, with your Eurocentric and Sinocentric viewpoints. The imperialism must end. 115.64.55.137 (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your ridiculous ad hominems aren’t addressing any of the issues I am pointing out. You resectioned material about tattoos and social stratification and added "However" to imply a relationship where none exists in the original cited reference . That is against the policy against synthesis and the guideline against editorializing.This has literally nothing to do with whether you're Vietnamese or whether you believe anyone else is a Eurocentric Sinocentric whatever. — MarkH21talk 20:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Question
Hello Mark, what do you think ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zvi_Sever — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.12.194.183 (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Reputation for fact checking
I was just wondering, how is a reputation for fact checking established exactly? – 2 . O . Boxing  19:35, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Typically through descriptions from independent established reliable sources (e.g. academic sources or the green entries at WP:RSP). Evidence can also be provided in the form of how reliable sources use the given source. — MarkH21talk 20:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * So regarding Sherdog.com (sorry if I'm being a bit dim), would instances of Foxsports (or other RS listed at RSP) using Sherdog's statistics in an article qualify? Or what about accrediting Sherdog with being the first to report something? – 2 . O . Boxing  21:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No don’t apologize! This isn’t something that most editors would get into anyways.Such examples would at least provide some evidence towards reliability. The strongest evidence though would be an RS explicitly describing Sherdog. — MarkH21talk 23:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Marvellous. Thanks for the advice. :) – 2 . O . Boxing  23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire
Hi Mark, I did a review at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire and I have a minor question on one of the three hooks. Please comment there. Thanks! Flibirigit (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Friendly reminder not to edit war.
Instead of reverting go to the talk page, just a reminder not to edit war on Xinjiang re-education camp. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mind the projection. Had I seen the Bitter Winter video being added there I would have reverted, too. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello can you help add something to the list I was going to but then the extended confirmed happened. I have reputable sources that classify it has genocide.
Now due to the whole General-Plan OST hunger plan. The Nazis were attempting to do reputable scholars do consider the Siege of Leningrad, a genocide even on the main page for Leningrad. I checked out the sources and they do confirm it can you add this for me I can't right now due to the extended confirm protection.

What the sources say The battle for Leningrad and the 872-day blockade of the city by German armies and their Finnish allies during the Second World War rank among the most horrific events in world history. Next to the Holocaust, the Leningrad siege was the greatest act of genocide in Europe during the Second World War. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm646

Its the 2 to last cite https://books.google.com/books?id=pkBH3LlRYeUC&pg=PA25#v=onepage&q&f=false

Timo Vihavainen calls it a genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timo_Vihavainen

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44936469?seq=1

For the death toll I think we should use whats used on the main page for Leningrad and have it on the chart like it was with GPO. 642,000 during the siege, 400,000 at evacuations 1 million Glantz, David (2001), The Siege of Leningrad 1941–44: 900 Days of Terror, Zenith Press, Osceola, WI, ISBN 0-7603-0941-8 page 179. I think this would be a good replacement since this event is mentioned specifically as genocide in reputable sources.7645ERB (talk) 07:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed sources! These look like reliable sources that directly support the inclusion and estimates for the Siege of Leningrad. I'll take a deeper look at the main article and other sources as well and using them for List of genocides by death toll. — MarkH21talk 18:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the kindness. Thank you helping with this!7645ERB (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ! Let me know if anything else comes up. — MarkH21talk 02:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Holodomor code leaking out?
One more thing on the chart in the Holodomor box the code is like leaking out. {{refn|group=N|name=Holodomor question| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides_by_death_toll.7645ERB (talk) 04:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * {{ping|7645ERB}} My bad! That's now fixed! Thanks again. — MarkH{{sub| 21 }}{{sup| talk }} 04:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

possible sock? maybe
I like exploring Wikipedia and came across your report and on this page a ip was blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:601:1501:1890:7560:929F:F164:2734 and a new one. Was acting the same way as the one Ip who you pointed out as being blocked https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=985841790&oldid=985511507 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Hahilasbuya hope this helps.7645ERB (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like an IP that was blocked by together with the other one in a rangeblock. See Sockpuppet investigations/Accopulocrat/Archive. Thanks though; you can also post directly to Sockpuppet investigations/Hahilasbuya under "Comments by other users" with further evidence or comments. — MarkH21talk 05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Apeirogon article, Classification of Euclidean apeirogons section

 * Hi!
 * Thank you for your thanking me for my recent edit on the Apeirogon article!
 * About the following sentence:
 * "An apeirogon also admits star polygon and antiprismatic realizations with a non-discrete set of infinitely many points",
 * i'm not sure whether the following 2 changes that i made are correct:
 * "An apeirogon also admits star polygons and antiprismatic realizations with a discrete set of infinitely many points".
 * (While i was editing this article, i decided to make these 2 changes & to ask someone else to check them a little bit later; but you seem to know the apeirogon subject very well!)
 * Sorry for having been so excessively bold...
 * In advance, thank you very much for removing these 2 changes, if necessary!
 * RavBol (talk) 00:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah I missed that change from non-discrete to discrete in Apeirogon. The original sentence was added by in, so perhaps he could clarify whether the original intended phrasing was indeed non-discrete. It does seem that it should be a discrete set, but one could just as easily create a non-discrete realization. The choice of topology for a realization isn't really important, since apeirogons are not inherently topological. — MarkH21talk 03:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I meant non-discrete. If you bounce a laser inside a circular mirror its path will be an equilateral and equiangular realization of an apeirogon (with the meaning of "realization" used there) but its set of vertices will (unless it is finite) not be a discrete subset of the plane. The topology is important, because we are talking about realizations, not about apeirogons as abstract polygons. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both very much for your quick edits & answers!
 * Bouncing a laser inside a circular line mirror is a very interesting "concrete" example realization of a regular(?) apeirogon!
 * Why not insert it at the end of Apeirogon?
 * By the way: shouldn't this section be a subsection of Apeirogon?
 * RavBol (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's referenced, I don't see why it can't be included as an example.The section about general realizations and Euclidean realizations could be grouped together, maybe under a "Realization" section. Hyperbolic apeirogons would probably also fit under that. — MarkH21talk 00:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your latest quick answer & edits!
 * @MarkH21: &
 * I must confess that i don't understand how a countably infinite set of vertices can be a non-discrete subset of the Euclidean plane with the usual topology... Could you give me another example, in which it would be more understandable, please?
 * RavBol (talk) 15:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The rational numbers are not a discrete set in the usual topology, for example. --JBL (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * On the one hand: thank you very much for your quick answer! ("Use it or loose it.")
 * On the other hand: i had just remembered this example (the only one that i knew), & i hoped that nobody had answered my question before myself... & nobody will believe me on this point...! Well done! ;-)
 * RavBol (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for bothering you again...
 * Would you know whether this set of vertices is dense in its circumscribed circle (the mirror), or whether this set leaves some circle arcs (with non-0 length) without any vertex, please?
 * In advance, thank you very much for your answer!
 * RavBol (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Dense. See e.g. and Three-gap theorem. But if you're intending to add more details on this material to the article you should be working from reliable sources, and this is the sort of thing the sources should tell you. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you again for your answer, & for your sources.
 * (I thought this set of vertices should be dense in its circumscribed circle: the considered star polygon is regular & infinite; so, by symmetry, a circle arc (with non-0 length) without any vertex should be infinitely repeated: impossible on a finite circle containing infinitely many vertices.
 * But you had stated that this set was "only" non-discrete, so i was wondering.)
 * I'm not mathematically "legitimate" enough to add such material on Wikipedia; i just try to clean up "obvious mess", to fix "obvious errors", & to fill in "obvious lacks".
 * RavBol (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A 2nd laser must be bounced from the same Vo point but along the symmetric direction with respect to the OVo line inside the circle line mirror, mustn't it?
 * Only the reunion of the 2 symmetric paths is an equilateral and equiangular realization of an apeirogon, isn't it? & only this reunion has symmetries, hasn't it?
 * RavBol (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, bidirectional beam, not unidirectional. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * RavBol (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * A 2nd laser must be bounced from the same Vo point but along the symmetric direction with respect to the OVo line inside the circle line mirror, mustn't it?
 * Only the reunion of the 2 symmetric paths is an equilateral and equiangular realization of an apeirogon, isn't it? & only this reunion has symmetries, hasn't it?
 * RavBol (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, bidirectional beam, not unidirectional. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, bidirectional beam, not unidirectional. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

U.S. Presidential Election of 2020
I believe my sub-article on the Presidential Election of 2020 is good to go. It includes a neutral tone, is balanced, and includes authoritative sources such as Politico and The Independent. Thank you for bringing to my attention the Post Millennial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keving.91 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the comments at Talk:Blacklisting and discuss it there. The article from The Independent does not seem to mention the word blacklist at all. — MarkH21talk 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you figure out who 60.224.19.131 is?
Hi. It looks like some Vietnamese angry crusader. I crossed paths with him/her, and now I'm being reverted for no reason on a page s/he absolutely has no interest in, Moab. Or did you just give up once you noticed you're dealing with a bully? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * While the IP's edit summaries were aggressive (bordering on personal attack / ad hominem), there was very mild support for the actual substance of their change and I didn't feel that strongly about the change.Their edit summaries are problematic though, so I would issue a further warning and see if it continues before escalating to the attention of the broader community or an administrator. You can ping me if more issues come up with this IP. — MarkH21talk 06:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)