This is an archive of past discussions with User:MarkH21. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Cedix: Oi sorry! You're totally right, I've forgotten about the and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected clause. That was a pretty egregious mistake on my part. — MarkH21talk13:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
It is all right now. You must know, that I had to read the page WP:SK twice before I had the courage to revert an experienced editor. But we are all humans. Thanks for understanding. I truly appreciate your good contributions. Regards. --Cedix (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
{ISI's initial attempts to create unrest in Kashmir against the Indian government were unsuccessful until it started growing in late-1980s.}
The citation this paragraph provides says nothing like it, I would like to you look into this.
Thank you.
I am sorry if I am informal, actually I haven't used wikipedia that much. Bhattakeel9 (talk) 09:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
On 20 April 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lucien Szpiro, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen04:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: Calling someone very opinionated and airing what they heard second-hand of a potentially embarrassing off-wiki academic event seems very much like casting aspersions. You’re right about the SPA tag though, sorry it slipped my mind. My attention was just grabbed by the off-wiki comment. — MarkH21talk12:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Well, hopefully the phenomenon of a bunch of former REU students creating accounts and duking it out about whether areas of mathematics are established or not is not one that will become a regular feature of AfD :). --JBL (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Joel B. Lewis: It really might just be the most effective way to attract new math editors, if they decide to stick around afterwards! Maybe we should regularly nominate the hottest REU topics for deletion! — MarkH21talk18:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
While Draft:Koro Kaisan Miles may not have been your draft, you did submit it for AFC review, so you were picked by the review script as the person who messages should be communicated to. I have corrected this mistake and suggest more caution in the future. Hasteur (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21, I removed content again that you restored in the Macau article because the information cited from that reference can't be verified in more authoritative sourcing. I don't have problems with the content itself or the way it was written and would be fine with restoring it if a publication or journal could be found to reference that. Thanks, Horserice (talk) 22:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi MarkH21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Kevin (aka L235·t·c) 03:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I have been very perplexed by this user multiple times relating to these iPhone SE articles. Quite frustrating. Seems like there may be a CIR issue? If I have some free time I will take a look at their edit history. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Page mover granted
Hello, MarkH21. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! qedk (t愛c)20:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the constructive feedback on my edits. I am however, using this as a final project for a class. There is a certain word count requirement I need to fulfill. If you wouldn't mind restoring my edits and leaving them as such for just a week, that would be great. After a week, I promise, you may revise my edits however you want. I really just want to finish out the semester strong. I understand that you are more experienced than myself, and I don't mean to encroach on this hobby of yours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aujokill (talk • contribs) 03:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Aujokill: Could you clarify on this? Do you mean that your final assignment has a minimum number of words that you need to add to a Wikipedia page?Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not work like this. We cannot leave information up temporarily solely for someone to fulfill course requirements. That’s not within the purpose of Wikipedia. Either the material is suitable or it’s not, there’s not temporary pass for various people’s assignments. The hope is that you are here to contribute to building an encyclopedia; blatant ulterior motives aren’t really allowed.Nevertheless, there is plenty of room for you to contribute! For instance, there is plenty of directly relevant material in this SCMP article and this Reuters article that would be valuable additions to the Xinjiang re-education camp article. In particular, it would be worth describing the disparity between the Chinese government position that the labor element of the camps is a job placement scheme, in contrast to the several reports of forced labor. — MarkH21talk05:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Countries with status parameters for tributary states should only be those that changed their status (Vietnam under Nguyễn dynasty, Ryukyu islands for example) or small states that would then be annexed by their lords like Chiang Mai whereas their status did matter in their political and historical information.--NhatMinh1701 (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
That’s an unnecessarily arbitrary inclusion criterion. The status of a tributary state is fundamental information for understanding its context, regardless of whether it changed during the course of the state’s existence. It absolutely matters in the political and historical aspects, particularly in this case when various Vietnamese dynasties were sovereign states and various Vietnamese dynasties were tributary states. The distinction between them is crucial context.Put another way, the use of the status parameter as intended adds information about a state’s crucial external relationships (already referenced in the article body) to the infobox. So far, there hasn’t been a single cogent reason to specifically exclude that information. Assertions that it just shouldn’t be there and ”I don’t like it” don’t count. — MarkH21talk09:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Why does your User Page say that you have been on WP for 13 years, 4 months when your first edit was on 27 December 2015? That's 4 years and 4.5 months. Mztourist (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Your statements are really a little funny. The description of the processes of the campaigns and related sources are already presented in these articles. I just make proper modification of the sentences. What else should I add? 七战功成21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
It is you making an unclear, if not a misleading title first.
It is you who alter and make an unclear title first. I would like to keep good faith, but I am really doubting the title you once made: "Academic autonomy". It is indeed telling nothing in this context. What is "Academic autonomy" to do with a police? Only when you include the term "infringement", it will become clearer. If you make an unclear title, it is definitely not uncivil to say you "prevent people from understanding the incident".
If you have done a PhD, you should know the importance of a title in an academic paper, and seriousness of "infringement". You insisted on using this title until I made a compromise. I can accept your inclusion of the term "alleged", but you should have the capabilities of making a balanced title but you did not. A reasonable user will doubt your purpose behind. Universehk (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Short doesn't mean unclear. I already made a compromise in the subject article. If you have assumed good faith of mine, you will have thought about yourself if you made the title unclear, but you did not. If I find you intentionally, or unintentionally blur the clarity of the title that may objectively prevent others understanding, I will change your edits without doubts under the condition of complying the policies of English Wikipedia. Finally, I wish you can improve your attitude to others and respect others effort.Universehk (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
You then added similarly verbose section title Being listed on a proposed sanction list based on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act at several articles; it seems you don't get the point.Also, don't proselytize respect and attitude improvements when you make comments like Pack it MarkH21 and You tried to prevent people from understanding the incident in response to my opening a talk page section to discuss the edits.Also, you might want to read what WP:WIKIVOICE actually says, since Save your word of accusing me of WP:WIKIVOICE doesn't make any sense. — MarkH21talk23:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
If you do not want other to proselytize respect and attitude improvements, mind your words, respect others. I am open to discussion related to adopting appropriate titles. For "Being listed on a proposed sanction list based on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act", I cannot think of a clearer title as of now. If you have an idea that will reasonably maintain clearness while not impeding others' understanding, you can raise it. Unfortunately, the problem of your attitude is more serious than the titling issue. Universehk (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
None of the words at the talk page or the reverts here and here reflect any disrespect? It's a matter of upholding MOS:SECTIONHEADING, which refers to A title should be a recognizable name or description of the topic that is natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles (bolding mine). Articles almost never have subsection titles more than a couple of words in length.
In this case, the section title is problematic (I'd suggest Alleged U.S. sanction). However, whether it is WP:DUE is even more of an issue, since it's cited only to reports that are based solely on a tweet from one person (Solomon Yue). It's not due weight or WP:PROMINENCE to dedicate a paragraph to one person's tweet, which has been unsubstantiated by anything afterwards. — MarkH21talk08:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi MarkH, you have been notified of the ARBIPA discretionary sanctions regime by RegentsPark about 12 months ago. The notification is still in effect. So I won't give you another one yet. I would make some observations based on my interaction with you over the last few weeks.
You are making edits at a frantic pace, in the mainspace as well as on talk pages. It is becoming difficult to even respond to your posts without running into an edit conflicts, because you would have made more edits in the meantime. You need to slow down.
You are tending to the side of filibustering, without enough recognition of the disputed and contentious nature of the subjects you are dealing with. Your contribution to the RfC that you youself started is an extreme example of this.
You are not displaying sufficient understanding of WP:NPOV. I admit that it is hard to figure out what NPOV should be in contentious subjects. But this edit and this talk page post appear as adding POV in the name of NPOV.
Most troublesome I find are misrepresentations of sources, e.g., here, where you take a comment made in the context of Kashmir–British India border and make it appear as if it applied to the Kashmir–Tibet border. The source you cited has no mention of Tibet whatsover.
I am still well aware of the discretionary sanctions active in the topic, but thanks for the reminder.
I’m not imposing a deadline or anything for you to respond. The latest set of issues was from another editor making edits, and my opening a talk page discussion with them (which they later pinged you in). I didn’t intent to involve in yet another discussion about this topic. Regarding edit conflicts, sorry, I make a lot of small fixes after I make my main post.
How is opening an RfC, on an issue that you said is {tq|certainly ripe for an RfC or DRN}} after we discussed it at length, at all filibustering? How am I not recognizing the dispute, when I am opening talk page discussions to discuss and bring up the point that village of Demchok itself is disputed.
I only wish to uphold WP:NPOV, and will defer to judgment of broader consensus, such as that at WP:NPOVN. I only seek to clearly represent what’s written in reliable sources, and if sources contradict, then that is often something that should be noted. The diff you link is where I tried to represent the contradictory nature situation, which was you pointed out first. I don’t have a personal opinion on the border dispute, except that it’s an unfortunate (and often silly) dispute, and that the world would be better off if they amicably resolved it.
If I’ve misrepresented that quote, then that is my fault for misunderstanding the source and it’s context. However, doesn’t this quote follow a passage that explicitly talks about both borders, with these instructions applying to the entire border commission? From the source (bolding mine):
So it was felt by Government to be urgently necessary to demarcate the border between British and Kashmir—and between Kashmiri and Tibetan—territory. The first boundary commission 1846 P. A. Vans Agnew and Capt. A. Cunningham were sent into Lahul as Boundary Commissioners with instructions to demarcate clear and incontestable boundary lines round the southern and eastern frontiers of Ladakh. Their instructions from Henry Lawrence (Agent to the Governor General, Northwest Frontier, and Resident at Lahore) included a requirement to establish such frontiers as would prevent the rulers of Jammu & Kashmir ever interrupting British Indian trade. And also, because Lawrence believed that the monopolistic trade clauses of the Ladakhi treaties of Leh (1842) and Temisgam (1684) should no longer be valid—he argued that since Gulab Singh had accepted British paramountcy, traders from British territories should be allowed to trade freely with Western Tibet—he instructed Cunningham and Vans Agnew to open negotiations along these lines with the Tibetan authorities at Gartok [...] There had been no co-operation from either the Jammu & Kashmir government or the Chinese and Tibetan authorities in Lhasa. [...] Cunningham’s second expedition in 1847 did not discover or resolve the anomalies inherent in his brief survey of the Tsho Moriri area in 1846. [...] He had been asked to demarcate a boundary and to ensure that it took account of the needs of British Indian trans-Himalayan trade—a subject which seems to have engaged his personal enthusiasm as well as his duty—and he had done so. His instructions from Henry Lawrence had included the injunction to ensure that if there should be any uncertainty about the traditional location of a boundary or its customary markers the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, and he no doubt believed that he had done this.
After reading this, it seemed clear to me that these were general instructions for the 1847 survey of both borders. I don’t see an indication that those instructions were given for the Kashmir–British India border but not the Kashmir–Tibet border.
My stance has always been to represent sources, engage in discussion, and build broader consensus. I regret that our recent discussions have caused you to border on assuming bad faith, but I assure you that I have no motivation except to build consensus and strive towards bettering the project with reliable sources. — MarkH21talk15:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: The part of the quote above is explicitly regarding Cunningham's 1847 survey. Further demonstrating that these instructions are about the Ladakh-Tibet border is the following (bolding mine):
During the autumn of 1846, Cunningham and Agnew had partially defined the border between Kashmir and British India. As soon as the passes opened in 1847 the British mission, now consisting of Cunningham, Lieutenant H. Strachey and Dr. T. Thomson, commenced their march to Tibet's western border to determine the boundary between the territories of the Emperor of China and those of Gulab Singh. — Huttenback, Robert A. (1968). "Kashmir as an imperial factor during the reign of Gulab Singh (1847-1857)". Journal of Asian History. 2 (2): 77–108.
In 1846, they surveyed the Ladakh-British India border. In 1847, they surveyed the Ladakh-Tibet border. — MarkH21talk20:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I know this but it doesn't the situation with respect to the Howard paper. Howard is dealing with Kashmir–British India border. So, we cannot extrapolate the comments made in that context to the Kashmir–Tibet border. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Howard's chapter is predominantly about the Kashmir-British India border, but the paragraph wherein Howard says that His instructions from Henry Lawrence had included the injunction to ensure [...] is solely about Cunningham’s second expedition in 1847 and the preceding part talking about demarcating a border at the eastern frontier of Ladakh with Tibet. That passage from Howard is clearly talking about the Kashmir-Tibet border. — MarkH21talk22:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I am afraid you are blinkered. That paragraph is about British India's trade with Tibet and Cunningham's "personal enthusiasm" about it. That would involve arranging the Kashmir-British India borders so that the its own trade routes wouldn't get affected. There is nothing about Kashmir-Tibet border here. You need to STOP this. Or you will end up at WP:ARE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Do you need me to paste the full paragraph here (which would probably be a copyvio at that point)? The paragraph clearly starts with Cunningham’s second expedition in 1847, followed by There had been no co-operation from either the Jammu & Kashmir government or the Chinese and Tibetan authorities in Lhasa. The 1847 expedition was indisputably about the Kashmir-Tibet border, and the subsequent sentence is also clearly about the 1847 expedition. Cooperation from the Chinese and Tibetan authorities in Lhasa wouldn't be needed to arranged the Kashmir-British India border. The rest of the chapter is about the Kashmir-British India border, but this paragraph isn't.You think that discretionary sanctions have to be enforced on an editor because you disagree with them on the substance of quotes from an academic paper? Your threat of ARE is a continued misguided assumption of bad faith. It's quite extraordinary to assert that another editor is POV-pushing when you base your assessment of academic peer-review papers on a presumption of racism. If you disagree on the content, we can open more WP:DR. I'm attempting to discuss the issues here and at the talk page, while your accusations are otherwise producing a very uncollegial editing atmosphere. — MarkH21talk00:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Brief comment
Hello! Wikipedia n00b here. You don't know me, but I was reading the page on Baal Hammon and found myself stumbling down a rabbithole of your and Biomax20's discussions regarding other pages' edits. My opinion doesn't really matter but I just wanted to say I thought you handled yourself very professionally, probably moreso than I would have in the situation. And as a baby Wikipedia person it's nice to see experienced editors being patient to the nth degree and keeping personal feelings/comments out of it regardless of what the other person(s) say(s). Good on you. Carla.Abra (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@Carla.Abra: Thanks for your kind words! I hope you enjoy sticking around here on Wikipedia. Don’t let yourself get flustered and always act civilly, then you’ll find that it’s a nice place :) — MarkH21talk07:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
