en User talk:MarkH21 Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Treaties on Kashmir

MarkH21 are you interested on working on improving the pages on the treaties on Jammu and Kashmir.

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

@MarkH21: Hi thanks for reverting my edit. I don't like the use of conspiracy theory because it is almost always politically charged. I'm sorry I didn't look carefully at the talk page. I'm pretty new here and the relevant information is often stuck in walls of text that make for a very long read in order to implement suitable changes. I also wanted to ask you if you added the "Falun Gong" thing because of me? I'm not sure I understood your reference if it was my fault. I don't mind the changes to be reverted if you feel they are biased in any way. Ohhhh I just found out you were not the person that did this, I will check with this person then. Feynstein (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@PhysiqueUL09: No worries! One should absolutely be skeptical about any assertions of something being a conspiracy theory. This just happens to be a case where plenty of reliable sources collectively call it one!

Sorry, what do you mean by you added the "Falun Gong" thing? At the COVID-19 pandemic in mainland China? Or do you mean my one comment at Talk:Falun Gong? — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: There was a change in the talk section history that added a warning that some Falun Gong people where spreading anti-chinese sentiment in multiple articles. It happened while I was talking to people about an article my friend sent me. I finally noticed it wasn't you XD I'm sorry for the incovenience. Thanks again! Feynstein (talk) 00:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Falun Gong. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 12:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

1987 elections rigging

One source says alleged and another says it did happen. Who are we going to favour? The same article mentions first 1987 elections were not fair, afterwards it says it's an allegation. That's why I removed the one claiming it did happen (because it hasn't been proven). Also Pak I used as a shortened term, sorry. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: Moving the discussion about the 1987 elections to Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus. No worries, just be aware that "Pak" and "Paki" are pejorative terms that are often described as ethnic slurs, so don't use them again. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What? Haven't you read the article? The 1987 election is mentioned at two places in "Background".

The 2nd para says: "Corruption and electoral malpractice in the 1987 Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly election from the Rajiv Gandhi government was a catalyst for the rebellion."

The 5th paragraph says: "The Islamists had organised under a banner named Muslim United Front, with a manifesto to work for Islamic unity and against political interference from the centre, and contested the 1987 state elections, in which they lost again. However, the 1987 elections were widely believed to be rigged so as to bring the secular parties (NC and INC) in Kashmir at the forefront, and this caused the insurgency in Kashmir."

While they don't use the same terms, they are about the same alleged electoral malpractice in 1987 elections causing the insurgency. I don't know any else malpractice alleged (or proven). The rigging too isn't proven. This is what I meant by "One source says alleged and another says it did happen."

So again I ask you who are we going to favour? If you want to claim there were malpractices or rigging, you must provide proof. And it must be solid proof. I won't accept mere statements or news articles, bring documentary proof like photos. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: I opened a discussion at Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus#1987 elections. Please see my comments there, which mention this issue, and respond there. Also be aware that Wikipedia is largely based on reporting by reliable sources, not court rulings and photos. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand you opened a discussion at Talk:Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus#1987 elections. However, you haven't answered why the article is asserting that election malpractices did happen in 1987 elections in one para of Backgound and 3 paras later, it says it is alleged. Didn't you bother reading my comment and the article? I am not asking for court ruling anymore, just hard proof. There are conflicting sources, some say rigging is alleged, others say it did happen. We can't have the same article saying it did happen and then later it is alleged to happen. That is confusing. You can answer at the Exodus article's talk page. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: My point is to have the discussion in one place, at the article talk page, rather than back and forth across both my talk page and the article talk page. I already suggested there to use some wording like widely regarded instead of asserting that it happened in WP:WIKIVOICE. — MarkH₂₁^talk 11:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The 5th para already mentions the 1987 elections as widely regarded as being rigged. I'm going to merge it with what's said in 2nd para, change the wording a bit. And that'll hopefully be the end of it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@LéKashmiriSocialiste: Sure, but you still missed my procedural point. It’s easier to have the dialogue in one place on the article talk page, rather than here on my user talk page. Please listen to other editors in the future when they ask you to engage in a particular talk discussion. — MarkH₂₁^talk 14:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Voice confrontation

On 25 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Voice confrontation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a 1967 study on voice confrontation found that only 38 percent of people could identify recordings of their own voice within five seconds? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Voice confrontation. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Voice confrontation), 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.

— Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Resurrecting deleted page

Hello again since a while.

Let's just say that I want to recreate a deleted page. Is there any proper regulation needed, or simply that new page needs to be entirely different from the old deleted revision? Also, the page I'm asking has none of my involvements in the previous revision.

Zero stylinx (talk) 18:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zero stylinx: That depends on the nature of the original deleted article. For retaining the originally deleted articles: see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review for articles that were deleted via more extensive discussion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Undeletion for articles that were deleted via less extensive discussion. If it’s an entirely different article without any real overlap with the original article (e.g. just has the same name), then neither of these are really needed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Then how's this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ultraman_Mebius_characters Zero stylinx (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zero stylinx: The draft Draft:List of Ultraman Mebius characters was deleted as an abandoned draft. You can request undeletion if you want to work on the original draft, or you can start a new one. But carefully consider whether such a standalone list article is needed, given the state of the underlying article at Ultraman Mebius. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I see. Oon copy-pasted the mega character listing that's already existed in the Ultraman Mebius section years prior, but I think I'll do my best to work it out. If I had the time unfortunately. *yawn* Thanks for the info. :D Zero stylinx (talk) 19:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You thank me, and then you post a warning for edit warring?

Mixed messages there dude. Serendi ^podous 19:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Huh? Didn’t I warn the IP for disruptive editing, mentioning that they were warned by you? — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Serendipodous: Oh I’m so sorry, I meant to post the warning on their talk page not yours... I hope the message that was at the end of the warning makes that clear. Massive fail. Fixing now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Because Vietnam's dynasties never used the surname of the Royal family for the country's name, I have added 朝 (dynasty) that are the right and common names. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:886C:11D:6FB:A118 (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@2601:204:E37F:FFF1:886C:11D:6FB:A118:The parameter isn’t necessarily for just the country’s name. But also compare to articles like Song dynasty and Tang dynasty (which are featured articles), or dynasties of other nations like Joseon. It’s consistent with articles to omit the word for “dynasty”, and it’s unnecessary to include it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As I know, Vietnam is different to China, Korea. They used the Royal family's surnames to name their dynasty, the official country name were Dai Viet, Annam or Daingu. Chinese and Korean used somethings, or names that related to the royal family to name their dynasties and their kingdoms at well. For example, Zhao Kuangyin used the name Song because his hometown was the territory of the old state Song. Vietnam didn't, excepted the Early Lý dynasty: Ly Nam De (Li Ben)'s original temple name was Nam Việt Hiếu Đế (Emperor Xiao of Nanyue), later was shortened to Ly Nam De to follow the Vietnamese tradition by medieval Vietnamese historians. That are differences, so you cannot use the Chinese-Korean view for Vietnamese. 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:886C:11D:6FB:A118 (talk) 04:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@2601:204:E37F:FFF1:886C:11D:6FB:A118: Sure, there are general differences in the origin of the dynastic name and occasional similarities as you pointed out (e.g. the Early Lý as you pointed out, the Tây Sơn dynasty, the Thục dynasty, and the Hồng Bàng dynasty). But that’s not really related to my original point. The articles are about dynasties which have common name ___ dynasty. It’s redundant to add dynasty to the infobox title regardless of what ___ is. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

When people see Ly, Tran, Ho... probably they got confuse with Vietnamese surname. For example, when you search "Tran" on google, google shows your results that do not have anything relate... But when you search "Tran dynasty", it eventually appears... The infobox names are uncommon and missed, lead to no result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:E37F:FFF1:886C:11D:6FB:A118 (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@2601:204:E37F:FFF1:886C:11D:6FB:A118: There's no confusion since the article is clearly titled ___ dynasty, just as there's no confusion at Han dynasty, Song dynasty, etc. with the surnames Han (Chinese surname) and Song (Chinese surname). There's no potential confusion, and this is not an issue for the numerous WP articles where consensus has determined that it is fine to use ___ as the infobox title when the article title is a variant of ___. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Should you wish to complain about Mztourist's WP:OWN issues

Please feel free to advise me. He simply will not accept that North Vietnamese sources have any validity. We're not supposed to be US-ipedia. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by this post. There was an ANI thread that was just closed over this, with consensus finding that he was exhibiting WP:OWNERSHIP. The underlying content dispute is now at two RfCs, and I don't intend on filing any additional complaints unless something egregious comes up. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:41, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

You're clearly ahead of me if an ANI has been filed. I have commented at both RFCs. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I recently had an encounter with this user over at the article for the Phoenix Program. After they raised an ANI complaint and manipulated the discussion to have me blocked for a week, I came across the fact that they'd very recently been reprimanded for the same behaviour. It seems that they not only trimmed this from their talk page, but placed dozens of edits on top so as to bury mention of this moderation. Anyway; at this stage, I need a break from Wikipedia. I've been treated very poorly in this exchange by people who I feel should behave better, by virtue of their position of power, but I thought you'd like to know that they appear to be continuing their disruptive editing in order to subdue commentary about war crimes by US military forces.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Mark. Sorry to come to your Talk page, but you should be aware that Senor Freebie has been permanently blocked today (not by me) for making personal attacks. I note he says that Mztourist "manipulated the discussion" to get him a short block, but the truth is that when I told both of them to stop edit warring, Senor Freebie who was the one who immediately continued the edit war (hence the short block), while Mztourist did at least abide by the warning. I hope that shows that administrators are generally impartial in handling disputes. Going to ANI can be risky but it's usually the best way to go. Deb (talk) 10:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ben Goertzel's page

Hi Mark,

thanks for your work to keep Wikipedia clean. However I don't understand why the official title of Ben has been changed without reflecting his main current role which is CEO & Founder of SingularityNET. What references do you need in oder to verify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nevermind-Punk (talk • contribs) 17:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Responding at the talk page, but basically see WP:RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 can you please revert back so that I can add the source as a citation?Nevermind-Punk (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? I added a source for the statement about SingularityNet, and reorganized the article slightly into a "Career" section. You can freely add other citations if you want. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Demchok, you may be blocked from editing. I am afraid this disruption has crossed beyond all limits. Please stop, or you will be facing sanctions. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

You should reread the discussion wherein I directly proposed the merge that you called a "disruption" and "undiscussed":

The best way is probably still to have a combined disputed area article. Some possibilities:
Charding Nullah (on just the geographic waterway) + Demchok (on the physical village(s)) + Demchok dispute (on the disputed area); redirect Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok, redirect Demchok sector to Demchok dispute
Charding Nullah (on just the geographic waterway) + Demchok (on the physical village(s) and the disputed area); redirect Dêmqog, Ngari Prefecture to Demchok, redirect Demchok sector to Demchok
I think that the latter makes more sense, since both the village and surrounding area are part of the dispute, while the information specific to the village(s) itself is very short. Historically, the village is central to discussions about the disputed area around it. It would be consistent with other articles on rivers on WP to just leave Charding Nullah as an article focused on the geographic feature.
— MarkH21 21:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

You replied 7 times after the proposal was made (including the related discussion). I also mentioned it again multiple times, including

See the three drafts I've placed for the reorganization proposal: User:MarkH21/Charding Nullah, User:MarkH21/Demchok dispute, User:MarkH21/Demchok. If you don't object, I'll go ahead and enact the proposal (after some tweaking to what's currently in the drafts)
— MarkH21 3:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

— MarkH₂₁^talk 13:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict

Hi MarkH21

I spent a lot of time collection all the information and the references and editing the Kashmir conflict page so that it flow correctly with all the references. Is there anything you need me to change. Just let me know what is wrong with my changes and I will change those areas Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnleeds1: Massive changes should be explained (at the very least with edit summaries, and even more helpful is the talk page). It's also helpful to break your large changes down into smaller edits, so you can more clearly explain your edits and so other editors can review your work and see what has been changed.

As I mentioned in my edit summary, your changes broke the lead by bringing "Early history" as a subsection of the lead. There are also some other evident issues, like the unreferenced sentence about the 1684 and 1842 treaties. You also trimmed a lot of the lead; why? There are also some places where you place too many citations, in some places the footnote links take up half of a line! — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 thanks for comming back to me. I tried to add links to pre 1947 history of Jammu and Kashmir wikipedia pages that impacted on the Kashmir Conflict, amongst them were the Treaty of Tingmosgang in 1684 and the Treaty of Chushul pages in wikipedia. I just tried to add them on the page, but you are right it was in the wrong place to add them. I don't mind you reverting the page and making all the changes you want. MarkH21 I am happy with that. MarkH21 I tried to make changed in small chunks but it did not work. The change was to make it flow through the history of the conflict, in chronological order and to add links to the treaties, the legislation and the UN security council resolutions, that went with those events. When I tried to do it in small bits, it did not read correctly. Your comment "your changes broke the lead by bringing "Early history" as a subsection of the lead." I tried to make it flow in chronological order, but you are welcome to make the changes you want. Even though you have reverted the changes, they are still in the history of the article now, I have left a note in the talk section of the page for people to review my changes and let me know what needs changing. You are welcome to have a look at at them too. Once people have suggested any changes, I will make those changes. They could also make changes after I have readded them. MarkH21 you could revert my changes back and make all the changes you want Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we just keep this in one place? Respond at the existing Talk:Kashmir conflict#Making it flow correctly, where other editors may be watching and join in. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 I am in the middle of making the changes. Can you please revert it so that I could make the changes. I just need some time. Thanks Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

MarkH21 I am in the middle of making the changes I need a few hours. I had to revert it so that I could make the changes. Give me some time Johnleeds1 (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Rada special deterrence forces, and Battle of Tripoli Airport

Would you be kind enough to cease your disruptive behaviour, searching for any wikipedia policy to have information removed, or omitted? RADA is known to be an extremist police that indeed uses nefarious means to crack down on populace in Tripoli. There are sources that can back up the claims. Rather than ratifying and expanding an article, you have engaged in damaging policing and omitting information in this critical time of media war and historical revisionism, involving in censoring practices claiming that articles had no sources, references or citations, when a simple google search could verify a statement. If this behaviour continues, you will be reported. Your actions are very suspicious. Biomax20 (talk) 05:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

moreover, i believe i complained on your talk page before, that complaint has been removed, if im not mistaken. Yet another reason for concern. Biomax20 (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The statements written on torture and dates were written as information came out, whether or not verifiable information exists, the youth who made the statements have done so under fear of persecution and a threat to their lives. Your disruptive editing claiming nothing has a source, is making it extremely difficult to mantain factuality on the subject and forcing me to do hours of research to satisfy your "policy" policing. Biomax20 (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Biomax20: Your previous comment was archived. Again, unreferenced content should not be added and is subject to immediate removal per the WP verifiability policy. Violations of this policy constitute disruptive editing, especially if it’s about sensitive subjects.

You still don’t seem to understand Wikipedia policies. If you reinstate unreferenced content as you did in the past, you may be blocked. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No i actually do understand wikipedia policies, and yet again, i maintain my claim that you are engaged in disruptive non constructive editing, because the sources and evidence is in the public domain. whether in Arabic in English, and your constant revising of my edits, which i end up citing, "constitutes" suspicious targetting. Frankly speaking. Biomax20 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Whats worse is, you made these edits after controversial LIFG jihadist Noman ben Othman made his speech glorifying RADA for their supposed Heroic actions in Tripoli. Biomax20 (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

If you understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then you’d know that point 2 of WP:DISRUPT is

Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

You would also know that WP:V says explicitly:

All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

I only target unreferenced content in general, it’s not topic-specific. My edits have nothing to do with ben Othman’s speech nor any other current events despite your wild suspicions.

I suggest that you spend your time finding citations for your content additions rather than complain about these instances of enforcement of Wikipedia policies, since they are widely accepted and enforced by the rest of the community. — MarkH₂₁^talk 05:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello MarkH21,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

How do I get a user page like some people have?

Hi, thank you for your welcome. Do you know how I can get a user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chodesquirt (talk • contribs) 03:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chodesquirt: Just edit the page User:Chodesquirt and publish your changes! By the way, sign comments on talk pages (like this one) use four tildes — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC). It lets editors know who writes what in discussions :) — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ayup

Hey, you deleted detainees from the reed camp page, but one of them was a blue link. Was that intentional? Thanks again for your work on these issues. Again, great map of the recent skirmish crisis! Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

@Geographyinitiative: Thanks for the correction! I had misread the entry as saying that Ayup's brother was in a re-education camp, not Ayup himself. I’ve reinstated the link in the list. Cheers! — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Hi Is the unjust removal of my content also edit war? Trojanishere clearly has no source backing up his “43 casualties are dead or heavily injured” claim. YuukiHirohiko (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@YuukiHirohiko: Reverting back-and-forth by any editor is generally edit-warring.

Here, it looks like it involves both parties, so you and Trojanishere should discuss it on the talk page to resolve the issue (you can use one of the dispute resolution processes if discussion eventually ends up going nowhere). — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21::

Trojanishere again reverted the section. This is with 24 hours and I believe his forth revert, 7th if Bakedbutter is also him.YuukiHirohiko (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@YuukiHirohiko: It looks like they have only edited once in the last 24 hours. I agree that it’s longer term edit warring though. By the way, you don’t need to tell me. You can submit reports at the edit-warring noticeboard yourself. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

User talk:MarkH21/Archive 6