m Signing comment by Keving.91 - "→U.S. Presidential Election of 2020: new section" Tag: Reverted |
→U.S. Presidential Election of 2020: look at the open discussion at Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
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.'' <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Keving.91|Keving.91]] ([[User talk:Keving.91#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Keving.91|contribs]]) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
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.'' <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Keving.91|Keving.91]] ([[User talk:Keving.91#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Keving.91|contribs]]) 22:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:{{ping|Keving.91}} Please take a look at the comments at [[Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election]] and discuss it there. The article from ''The Independent'' does not seem to mention the word {{tq|blacklist}} at all. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:35, 2 December 2020
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() | |||||||||
|
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 under the label "Hairstyles" and added "However" to
imply a relationship where none exists
in the original cited reference here. 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)
- Your ridiculous ad hominems aren’t addressing any of the issues I am pointing out. You resectioned material about tattoos and social stratification under the label "Hairstyles" and added "However" to
- 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)
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)
- @Squared.Circle.Boxing: 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)
- @Squared.Circle.Boxing: 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)
- 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)
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. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:37, 20 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)
- @RavBol: Ah I missed that change from
non-discrete
todiscrete
in Apeirogon#Classification of Euclidean apeirogons. The original sentence was added by David Eppstein in this edit, so perhaps he could clarify whether the original intended phrasing was indeednon-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)- @RavBol: 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)
- @RavBol: Ah I missed that change from
- @MarkH21: & @David Eppstein:
- 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#Classification of Euclidean apeirogons?
- By the way: shouldn't this section be a subsection of Apeirogon#Realizations?
- RavBol (talk) 15:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
- @RavBol: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)
- @MarkH21:
- Thank you very much for your latest quick answer & edits!
- @MarkH21: & @David Eppstein:
- 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)
- @JayBeeEll:
- 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)
- @David Eppstein:
- 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. [1] 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)
- @David Eppstein:
- 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)
- @David Eppstein:
- 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)
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)
- @7645ERB: 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)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
You definitely deserve this for helping me since I can't edit the page right now. If only the world was as kind! 7645ERB (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC) |
DYK for Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire
On 29 October 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire convinced several Iroquois tribes to ally with the French against the English in 1711 through song? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Louis-Thomas Chabert de Joncaire), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:05, 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)
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)
- @7645ERB: It looks like an IP that was blocked by Berean Hunter together with the other one in a rangeblock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Accopulocrat/Archive#04 September 2020. Thanks though; you can also post directly to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hahilasbuya under "Comments by other users" with further evidence or comments. — MarkH21talk 05:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
ITN Recognition
On 29 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Cecilia Chiang, which you substantially updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Jayron32 15:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
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)
- @Keving.91: Please take a look at the comments at Talk:Blacklisting#Tweets about the 2020 US Presidential Election 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)