AafiOnMobile (talk | contribs) →A barnstar for you!: new WikiLove message Tag: wikilove |
Pasdecomplot (talk | contribs) →December 2020: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I appreciate your tireless work in preventing Wikipedia from vandalism and offcourse your recent work reporting Authordom, who gave me so much headache. I'm at ease finding him globally locked now. Well done my friend, well done! ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:SteelBlue">The Aafī on Mobile</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:#80A0FF"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]]</sup> 21:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I appreciate your tireless work in preventing Wikipedia from vandalism and offcourse your recent work reporting Authordom, who gave me so much headache. I'm at ease finding him globally locked now. Well done my friend, well done! ─ [[User:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:SteelBlue">The Aafī on Mobile</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:AafiOnMobile|<span style="color:#80A0FF"><sup>(talk)</sup></span>]]</sup> 21:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
|} |
|} |
||
== December 2020 == |
|||
{{uw-ew}} Please stop edit warring at [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and bring concerns to the talk page there. Thank you. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot|talk]]) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:58, 31 December 2020
|
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)
A cup of coffee for you!
Thanks for putting BNT162b2 through the In the News process, including the nomination, conversation, and article updates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 3 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)
- @Arminden: 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)
New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello MarkH21,
- Year in review
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 Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra 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 DannyS712 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.
Rank | Username | Num reviews | Log |
---|---|---|---|
1 | DannyS712 bot III (talk) | 67,552 | Patrol Page Curation |
2 | Rosguill (talk) | 63,821 | Patrol Page Curation |
3 | John B123 (talk) | 21,697 | Patrol Page Curation |
4 | Onel5969 (talk) | 19,879 | Patrol Page Curation |
5 | JTtheOG (talk) | 12,901 | Patrol Page Curation |
6 | Mcampany (talk) | 9,103 | Patrol Page Curation |
7 | DragonflySixtyseven (talk) | 6,401 | Patrol Page Curation |
8 | Mccapra (talk) | 4,918 | Patrol Page Curation |
9 | Hughesdarren (talk) | 4,520 | Patrol Page Curation |
10 | Utopes (talk) | 3,958 | Patrol Page Curation |
- Reviewer of the Year
John B123 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.
- NPP Technical Achievement Award
As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 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.
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)
Tibetan Political Review
Hi. Just noticed 20DEC deletion of Tibetan Political Review as a source on another page Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950#Middle Way Approach 1973 and of the edits using the source. It's a well researched and knowledgeable piece. Can you provide RSN review supporting the position it isn't RS? See also edits at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Pasdecomplot: See my response at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism. A journal with no academic publisher, no evidence of peer-review (different from the existence of an editorial board), and no evidence of citations or reviews by established reliable sources is not considered an RS by WP:SOURCE or WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Reliability & due weight are also not presumed until disproven as you seem to suggest with
provide RSN review supporting the position it isn't RS
. The onus is on the editor wishing to add a new source to gain consensus about its reliability and due weight per WP:CHALLENGE. — MarkH21talk 12:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)- To help resolve this without cluttering the unrelated matters at Talk:Nyingchi#Tourism, I have opened WP:RSN#Tibetan Political Review. — MarkH21talk 12:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Au contraire. See WP:RSN#Tibetan Political Review. Shall I undo the reverts, or would you like the honors?Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Five editors have found it unreliable, while you are the sole editor calling it reliable. Stop re-inserting contested material, that is against WP:CHALLENGE and is disruptive editing. If there is no consensus for restoring challenged material, don't re-insert it. A consensus for reinsertion is required before you add it back; right now that has not been achieved. — MarkH21talk 01:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Au contraire. See WP:RSN#Tibetan Political Review. Shall I undo the reverts, or would you like the honors?Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. Have you read the RSN? Each of the reasons stated have been proven as unfounded. Citations, academic credentials, proven reliability, etc. Among those amazing credentials are that Canada's immigration agency and U Minnesota Human rights library use it for reliable accounts on current conditions in Tibet - a huge vote of confidence. These citations/reference uses depict a highly reliable RS with Oxford's and Harvard's blessings. So, is it that even after the slam dunk of evidence on reliability, opinions as to its reliability can still be valid? Aren't those editors beholden to respect a proven Reliable Source, and withdraw objections?
- BTW, did I miss the consensus on changing the title to "Economy" from "Tourism"? It happens to effectively bury the section being disputed. And will use sources (Chinese state-run media) not as reliable as Tibetan Political Review. Pasdecomplot (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I started it and responded to your post there along with other editors; particularly to the so-called
academic credentials
andcitations
. So far, every single editor besides you has found the source to be unreliable and the concerns to be legitimate. If 5 editors uniformly disagree with you, then you might not be on the same page as the rest of the community. Furthermore, do you understand what the WP policy about consensus? This clearly isn't aslam dunk
in the direction that you think it is.In any case, there is a clear consensus from those who have commented that the Tibetan Political Review is definitively not a reliable source for anything except statements about itself. Of course, the current consensus can change and the consensus can be broadened. Right now, it's not about whether you think it's a slam dunk or whether I disagree with you. It's about the community consensus."Economy" is a standard section title for a settlement, and tourism is just one aspect of that. It doesn't hide anything because "Tourism" is still a subsection at Nyingchi#Tourism and it currently is the only material in the "Economy" section. I don't know what you're talking about when you saywill use sources (Chinese state-run media) not as reliable as Tibetan Political Review
, but I haven't commented on anything resembling that nor have I added any content from Chinese state-run media. — MarkH21talk 09:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I started it and responded to your post there along with other editors; particularly to the so-called
btw, please ask before reformatting edits at RSN. It changed the legibility of the text purposefully formatted below your lead. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're expected to indent responses, which is all that my edit did. See WP:THREAD. I indented your comment per WP:TPO because that is a basic formatting issue for threaded discussions, but your objection is duly noted (even though your own reformatting seems to preserve the indents) and apologies if it was unwelcome.By the way, your latest reformatting adds so many bullet points to single comments that it is now difficult to easily see which comments belong to a single editor. My suggestion is to only use bullets within a comment in such a way that it is still clear that it is one comment from one editor. — MarkH21talk 13:23, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hi. I want to cool off a possible misunderstanding. Since RSN 313, I've been adhering to you general advice for RS and sources, with allowances for specific instances. Even though the closing said all should be reviewed separately. My understanding of your advice was all should be inline sourced via RS, with exceptions. No problem.
- Now, RFA appears at Nyingchi. Not my edit, but Normchou's. I added Smith back to Normchou's edit. Esiymbro first added RFA to the section.
- What may be the misunderstanding is that RFA remains, despite reverts, which I'm thinking is a form of support. So, I can't help be respectfully notice your edits around the RFA, without deleting the RFA. That's all, that's what I perceive of as support. These edits [1][2] [3][4] and [5]. So, what do you need to defuse the situation? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Pasdecomplot: My not removing the other content does not mean I endorse or reject it, particularly since it is currently under a separate discussion by other editors. Please do not assume support in the absence of opposition (this is a common pattern, e.g. do not assume reliability in the absence of claims of unreliability). I also did not express any explicit opinions about RFA in the previous RSN.So as I said in my last comment at RSN, just
drop the false claim
and we can move on. Also, please do talk into mind the feedback from WP:ANI#Pasdecomplot and refrain fom commenting on other editors' opinions (especially if it's not explicit) in the future. Hopefully you will also receive further clarification and feedback on your editing restrictions from the admins there. Thanks. — MarkH21talk 16:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Pasdecomplot: My not removing the other content does not mean I endorse or reject it, particularly since it is currently under a separate discussion by other editors. Please do not assume support in the absence of opposition (this is a common pattern, e.g. do not assume reliability in the absence of claims of unreliability). I also did not express any explicit opinions about RFA in the previous RSN.So as I said in my last comment at RSN, just
- Hi. (Returning after equipment issues.) Just wanted to share the policy I read months ago, WP:SILENCE, which was the basis of the comment of "support" for RFA on RSN. As I understand the policy, if the edits remain without reverts or reedits, it's implied CON, which I on RSN described as "support", based on the diffs provided above in this thread.
- So, hopefully this info on policy lets you know why and the basis for the "support" edit. Possibly, implied CON with a link to policy would have been more careful. But, what do you need at RSN? Would a statement with an intro of:
- "As a note, the previous statement describing "support" by MarkH21 for RFA was based on my understanding of WP:SILENCE for implied consent. Since the editor has clarified here that their support for RFA "is a false claim" and has not been stated,... 1. I wish to modify the characterization of 'support' to 'implied consent' of RFA as RS(? or)... 2. I provide this as a clarification that they have stated they do not support RFA as an RS(? or)...
- Is there another option 3. you'd prefer? Sincerely attempting to address your concerns. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Waiting on feedback from you before posting clarification on the RSN. While waiting, I provided a few more academic cites, editor info, and clarified earlier cites. Just wanted to let you know I am waiting to see what you need, or if the info on where I was coming from with policy has diffused the issue, possibly. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Pasdecomplot:
- I did not not give "implied support" for the "replacement of .
- WP:SILENCE (which is about the weakest form of community consensus) does not say that every editor that has edited an article agrees with everything on that article. I have removed unreferenced edits on large articles like England. That does not mean that I thereby imply that I support every single claim and the reliability of every single reference in the article.
- Two other editors were already discussing the addition of the RFA-referenced content when I removed (not replaced) the TPR-referenced content. I did not comment on the RFA-referenced content at all.
- I did not support
previous replacment of text via Tibetan Political Review with different text via the source Radio Free Asia
nor did I "implicitly support" it. I also did nothingin contradiction to [...] previously stated views on RFA, which can be found in RSN archive 313
; I never commented specifically on RFA at RSN archive 313. Nor has any other single editor "supported" or "implicitly supported" the replacement of text in contradiction to what they have said at RSN archive 313 about RFA. - When you claim that someone supports something and they tell you multiple times that it is false and asks you to drop the false claim, just admit that it was false. Don't assert that it was still "implied" when they are telling you that it wasn't. Don't keep trying to justify the misrepresentation of another editor's position.
- I did not not give "implied support" for the "replacement of .
- So just admit that the initial claim was false and move on. — MarkH21talk 04:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Pasdecomplot:
- Waiting on feedback from you before posting clarification on the RSN. While waiting, I provided a few more academic cites, editor info, and clarified earlier cites. Just wanted to let you know I am waiting to see what you need, or if the info on where I was coming from with policy has diffused the issue, possibly. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Preventing erasure
Hi, I understand the lack of verification of certain facts. Therefore I will clarify and hyperlink where necessary on Dreadlocks. Hope this is ok. My intention was so that the cultures and their histories aren't erased which someone had previously done. Most of the sources on that page refer to non-verifiable information such that actually seventy percent of the page could be erased in terms of policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 01:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DrJFrederick: Hyperlinks to other Wikipedia articles are not citations. Again, see the policy on verifiability and the guideline on citing sources as has already been mentioned on your talk page and in the edit summaries. Do not add the material back without citations. — MarkH21talk 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: In that case, the African Section is unverifiable and so is the In Western Counterculture section. Delete those as well if you're trying to be thorough. See the policy on verifiability and the guideline on citing sources if you need help. Enjoy erasing useful information without doing your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: Reference (source) 1 should have cited the Hinduism section you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @DrJFrederick: Those unreferenced claims may be deleted as well. That's not the point though.I understand that you're upset about seeing the removal by multiple editors of content that you had added. But if someone removes unreferenced content that you have added, you cannot add it back without providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the content.If the book in reference 1 supports all of the multiple claims that you added here, then cite it and provide the relevant quotes and/or page numbers. You also deleted references without explanation.Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes:
~~~~
. — MarkH21talk 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC) - @MarkH21: No I'm good thanks. You edit as carelessly and haphazardly as you wish. I've got better things to do.
- @DrJFrederick: Those unreferenced claims may be deleted as well. That's not the point though.I understand that you're upset about seeing the removal by multiple editors of content that you had added. But if someone removes unreferenced content that you have added, you cannot add it back without providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the content.If the book in reference 1 supports all of the multiple claims that you added here, then cite it and provide the relevant quotes and/or page numbers. You also deleted references without explanation.Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes:
- @MarkH21: Reference (source) 1 should have cited the Hinduism section you deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 10:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- @MarkH21: In that case, the African Section is unverifiable and so is the In Western Counterculture section. Delete those as well if you're trying to be thorough. See the policy on verifiability and the guideline on citing sources if you need help. Enjoy erasing useful information without doing your research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrJFrederick (talk • contribs) 09:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Boston Chinatown massacre
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Boston Chinatown massacre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muttnick -- Muttnick (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Boston Chinatown massacre
The article Boston Chinatown massacre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Boston Chinatown massacre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Muttnick -- Muttnick (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
I appreciate your tireless work in preventing Wikipedia from vandalism and offcourse your recent work reporting Authordom, who gave me so much headache. I'm at ease finding him globally locked now. Well done my friend, well done! ─ The Aafī on Mobile (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC) |
December 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop edit warring at 2008 Tibetan unrest and bring concerns to the talk page there. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)