User talk:MarkH21/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Patrick Dehornoy for "Artin group" and "Dehornoy order"

Is that the right place to answer your messages, rather than posting them on my own "talk" page? Sorry, I am an unexperienced Wiki user.

I edited the two articles, but I do not think that there is any serious COI.

For "Artin group", I agree with your changes, excepted for the deletion of the reference to Jacques Tits as the first investigator of these groups: I re-added him in a separate sentence. As for the question of whether a conjectured solution to the word problem is not worth mentioning, my opinion differs from yours (there is actually a solution working on all examples, but the proof that it is complete is missing in the general case), but, as this is clearly a COI matter, I skip it and approve you.

For "Dehornoy order", I dont agree with the deletion of the "Discovery" section: from a philosophical viewpoint, the question of whether the discovery of the braid order was a application of set theory is of interest, this is even the most interesting point. I wish to reintroduce this section. You protest against the fact that there is no reference, I added one. Please, reconsider your position. You are welcome to suggest another formulation that would avoid any possibility of COI (I agree to skip my name if you prefer). Thank you. Patrick Dehornoy 11:00, 5 August 2019 (GMT)

Further addition: I reconsidered "Dehornoy order" and rewrote the "Discovery" section so that my name no longer appears. I am fully satisfied. Please check this. Patrick Dehornoy 13:35, 5 August 2019 (GMT)

I agree with most of what you said here / added to the articles; I'm responding on your talk page! — MarkH21 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Thank you for your message, I dont intend to post any further page that could give rise to a COI (I intend to prepare pages about the logician "Richard Laver", the technical notion of set theory "Laver cardinal", and — mainly — "Laver tables", which are very simple combinatorial objects whose properties are quite strange. This is a fascinating subject — and I have no relation with them.

About "Artin-Tits group", I have no further comment. I see you deleted the early references by Brieskorn (Bourbaki seminar) and Bourbaki: these were added to guarantee the well-founded notoriety of the groups, but, if you find them useless, this is fine with me. As it stands, the new page is richer, more complete, and more balanced than the previous draft. I am happy with this.

About "Dehornoy order", I compactified the "Discovery" section, and tries to make the style less editorial. You are welcome to suggest further improvements, but I would definitely prefer that something is mentioned, because this is a very specific and rare situation, and this is precisely this history that made the subject interesting and somehow famous in the math community. What do you think of the new version? Patrick Dehornoy 12:42, 6 August 2019 (GMT)

No problem! You may edit articles that you may even have a COI with, but the Wikipedia policy discourages one from doing so directly. Proposing edits on an article talk page or on the talk pages of other users will usually have the desired effect without becoming entangled in complicated procedures. The guide at WP:PSCOI provides a clear overview of what to do.
Regarding Artin–Tits group, I am not saying that the reference is useless but that it does not belong in the lead (which should summarize content already in the article / introduce the topic). The "References" or "Further reading" sections would be appropriate though. Regarding Dehornoy order, the new "Discovery section" looks well-suited! I will make a few minor edits but feel free to discuss any of my changes. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark. I am fully satisfied with the edits you made on "Artin-Tits groups" and "Dehornoy order". Regarding the "History" section of the latter, I shyly reintroduced the words "a property that is a priori unconnected with large cardinals" at the end of the first sentence, because it seems to me that this point is really important (otherwise who would have cared?). If you dont like it, delete it, that's not a major issue.

I have two general questions: - about citations, you tend to place them after the dot or comma that closes the sentence, whereas I place them definetely before, in the sentence rather than outside; is there a uniform policy? - about first names, I have seen someone changed the initials I typed into full names; is there a uniform policy?

Finally, a personal question (if you permit me): are you a professional mathematician or an amateur? One sentence you typed surprises me, namely that conjectures are not eligible for mentioning: it seems that most mathematicians would consider that a good conjecture is more important than a weak theorem (think of the Riemann Hypothesis...), dont you agree?

Ah yes that sounds good, I could not think of a good way to word that!

About citations, the Manual of Style dictates that the footnote should come immediately after any punctuation here, with no space before. As for first names, the Manual of Style dictates that the first instance of a name should be the full name with subsequent references by their surname (see MOS:SURNAME). The exception is only if "the name is commonly written that way" (see MOS:CITEPUNCT), e.g. J. R. R. Tolkien.

Indeed I am a professional mathematician. I absolutely agree that conjectures are incredibly important, but my understanding was that it was a proposed solution of some sort to a larger conjecture (apologies if this is incorrect, I study number theory and geometry and am not particularly familiar with this area). So in that sense, conjectural solutions to problems are generally too numerous and unimportant (e.g. the Riemann Hypothesis article would be extraordinarily long if we included proposed solutions) unless can be demonstrated to have attracted significant attention.

If that is the case for this and you can provide independent sources, then feel free to re-introduce that sentence that I deleted. Perhaps more detail would make it clear that it is not a vague idea of a proposed solution? — MarkH21 (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Mark. Thank you very much for your answer. About the policy for footnotes and first names, it's clear and, although I am not spontaneously inclined toward such conventions, I'll respectt them, that's easy (and minor).

About the fact that you are indeed a mathematician (welcome to the crew!), I have still a naive question: I saw that most participants use pseudos, and so do you. What is the reason? I of course fully endorse what I am writing, and see no reason to hide my identity: for those few who know me, that's a sort of guarantee, and for those (many) who dont know me, this is a vacuous point. But I guess this is a too naive approach...

About this conjecture on the WP of Artin-Tits groups, let us forget it. If someone wishes to mention it, he/she is welcome, but I clearly understand that, as for me, there is a COI. Actually, the conjecture is quite well established, because there is experimental evidence (billions of random "difficult" tries, which proves nothing) and a proof for "wide" particular classes (FC-type and large type, which are somehow the two opposite cases). Also, the community is well aware of it. But arguing so would require to cite two more papers of mine, that's too much.

Best, Patrick Dehornoy 17:00, 08 August 2019 (GMT)

Purely because the internet is full of unreasonable people who may harass or otherwise cause unfavorable actions against one with whom they may disagree. It's not that editors do not endorse their own actions, but wish to protect against those of others.

If you write it out on the talk page, I'll be happy to add a well-referenced discussion about this conjecture to the article on your behalf! — MarkH21 (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Reconnecting after some break. About pseudos, I understand, and switched to "Laopi52". Following our example, I prepared a main page ("User:Laopi52") and a talk page("User talk:Laopi52"). I have one problem: the clicks to "main" and "talk" on the first lines are not functional (refering to neither "main" nor "talk"): if you understand my mistake, this should be easy to fix. Thank you.

About adding the conjecture about Artin-Tits groups, I'll consider it. Thank you for your kind offer.

Best, PD, alias Laopi52 19:15, 13 August 2019 (GMT)

Your new page looks nice! The links seem to work right now, I'm guessing that you figured out how to fix it before I even got to this :) — MarkH21 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. About the links, I did nothing, and I see it now works. Maybe redundant pages are automatically purged after some time. Anyway, all is in in order now. I still intend to work on "Orderable group" ASAP, but right now I have a health problem. Laopi52 15:00, 17 August 2019 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.17.237.58 (talk)

I am very sorry to hear that. I wish you a speedy recovery and I look forward to seeing the new article :) — MarkH21 (talk) 05:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Quanzhou page

Kinmen is a functioning county of the ROC (Taiwan). I think that my wording ([1]) is more neutral than writing "Taiwan-controlled" (the original wording). The original wording doesn't even mention the "Republic of China". What do you think? Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's my personal opinion. If you're really against the way I wrote it, I guess I wouldn't really oppose you. But I think my way is slightly more neutral, so I wrote it that way. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The issue is there are two separate legal claims by the ROC and PRC over the county, with the ROC maintaining effective control and administration. Putting a comma after Kinmen in "Kinmen County, ROC" implies that it is a part of ROC, rather than a claimed part of both and therefore gives priority to the ROC claim. I've tried something even more neutral, mentioning the ROC claim and administration without the problematic format. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Too many italics, not quite enough spacing

Please look at this edit. One italicizes variables in this setting, but not digits and not parentheses or other punctuation and not things like det, cos, max, log, inf, exp, etc. This is codified in WP:MOSMATH. It is consistent with the way it's done in TeX and LaTeX. Also, note spacing appropriate to a binary operation symbol in g + 1 rather than g+1. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I figured I would use HTML math formatting rather than LaTeX for this article since it wouldn't be too formula-heavy, but I often get confused about proper non-LaTeX math formatting. Much appreciated! — MarkH21 (talk) 19:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Siegel modular variety

Hello! Your submission of Siegel modular variety at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit war on User talk:116.49.146.144

Hi MarkH21,

I see you posted a notice of edit war on the above talk page. Was that really necessary? I ask since:

a) The notice about an edit war states:

"you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree."

If you look at the San Tin page edit history, the only other person making edits in the last day or so is you. Hence "other editors" would be more optimally worded as "another editor". That there are 2 people making edits means any difference of opinion is only 50/50.

b) Are you familiar with the concept of assuming good faith? I invite you and anyone else to show me please where the edits I have attempted have not been intended constructively. I have assumed good faith on my part when you have undone numerous edits I have made. I also sought to engage you in constructive dialogue on the San Tin talk page. Posting the threat in the message about an edit war seems any of hasty, ill-considered and inappropriate and potentially any of aggressive and bullying.

I regret having to post this response. Under the circumstances I feel I have little choice. I hope that instead of posting threatening messages, any work we do together is polite, civil, constructive, respectful and in good faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.146.144 (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Responding on your talk page, but the issue is that you have moved the second paragraph into the first on 3 separate occasions and added the other entities sharing the same name into the lead sentence on 3 separate occasions, all without responding to my reasoning for reverting. The wording of the notice is from a template; apologies for not carefully modifying the wording.
Furthermore, I placed that notice on your talk page to make you aware of the WP:3RR rule. If you undo, whether partially or in full, another editor's actions then it is a violation of that rule. You've done so 3 times for two separate issues on San Tin. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21,

Your response added User talk:116.49.146.144

In response to your comment on my talk page, the issue is that you continued to move the transportation information into the first lead paragraph three separate times & add the other entities with the name "San Tin" into the first lead sentence three separate times while totally ignoring my reverts and my reasoning. I'll point out WP:BRD here: Discuss the contribution, and the reasons for the contribution, on the article's talk page with the person who reverted your contribution. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.

And now added this:

@116.49.146.144: Stop edit warring and stop re-adding that San Tin is each of an area, a highway, a public transport interchange and one of the 31 constituencies of Yuen Long District. The article is about the constituency. It is not about everything that shares the name "San Tin". On top of that but much less importantly, stop capitalizing cardinal directions and stop adding redundant wikilinks.

If I may response:

• "The article is about the constituency."

If that is the case then that in effect means that you deleted a wikipedia page when you merged the page on San Tin constituency with the page on the San Tin that was unrelated to the political constituency. That decision was taken by you and you alone.

If you also take a look at:

1) the number of edits I have made to that page 2) the number of such edits you reverted 3) my responses to the reverts you made

In retrospect do you still feel posting that threat when you did was the optimal response? Have you considered for example:

a) Not everyone is as experienced in wikipedia editing as you are? b) Not everyone gets everything right 1st time? c) There are more optimal ways of working with people than throwing threats around at the 1st opportunity?

I regret to have to respectfully say that your further reply only cements my worry that your approach is aggressive trying to railroad me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.146.144 (talk) 08:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not a threat and it never has been. It's to inform you about the rules about edit warring and 3RR specifically because I thought that you might not be aware. As for the merge, see WP:MERGEPROP. It was a bold merge based on WP:GEOLAND and is naturally open to challenge and discussion. Note: the second quotation you give was made on Talk:San Tin before any of the other comments. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Need to talk

What this all about you gave me this info earlier I already know how used it before? Oon835 (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: Sorry if I already told you about this before, but it is a friendly reminder that you should always write edit summaries. I noticed that you never write them, but they make it much easier for other people to understand what you are doing. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So you are just a friendly reminder like the last time you gave me about sock puppet and now it's edit summaries. I have just one question can you contact which user who knows about Power Rangers and Lego because I'm having a hardtime searching someone for help? Oon835 (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes and you admitted that those edits were coming from your computer. Now, please use edit summaries as although it is not strictly required, it is very helpful to others. I don’t know anyone for that but you can try asking the editors at WT:ANIME. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

There is one problem edit the page when I used my smartphone because there is no edit summaries and what should I do? Oon835 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Afd

Please notify the other article creators. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

@Rich Farmbrough: Sorry, I didn't realize that you weren't the only creator. Done! — MarkH21 (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Siegel modular variety

On 11 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siegel modular variety, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Siegel modular varieties naturally capture information about black hole entropy in string theory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siegel modular variety. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siegel modular variety), 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.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Request

Can you please help me move all my 5 Lego pages into the draft pages just like you did before?

• Lego DC Super Hero Girls
• Lego The Lone Ranger
• Lego Scooby-Doo!
• Lego The Powerpuff Girls
• Lego Overwatch

Oon835 (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: Sure, but you can actually do it yourself too. It's under "More" on the top right of each page, next to the search bar. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me to move all my 5 pages into the draft pages. Oon835 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello Mark, do you think Moshe Goldberg deserve an entry ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.66.161.221 (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to pass WP:NACADEMIC as others noted in its AfC review. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Ultraman Mebius characters

Yo, long time no see. I'm currently enrolling in my first week as a degree student in college. I'm currently lacking in internet, but I have one little request. I know that user has created troubles again, but my only wish is to redirect the entire page to Ultraman Mebius and undo all of Oon's edits for today. That way, when I have enough internet supply, I could help refurbishing the character page into one that meets wikipedia standards. I hope that we can meet again sometime after that. Zero stylinx (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You got to give me one more chance so I can do my best to improve my page. Oon835 (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not my fault, I was just asked permission to Zero stylinx to copied all the characters out and put in my sandbox so I can do some testing and he allowed me. If I do it correctly and it won't go wrong. Like other users advice me not to give up hope and do my best. Oon835 (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, but I did say in talk page that you can only make the sandbox, but not the actual page at a hasty decision. The Mebius character page is massively undeveloped that some of the contents were even plagiarised from Ultraman Wiki. Examples include the Space Monster Eleking section is just a word by word plagiarism from Ultraman Wiki article and some of the monster list lacks their nihongo tabs. Do you really call that completed? I gave you a simple order, yet you do your old ways again like the List of Ultraman: The Ultimate Hero characters as seen in the history revision. Zero stylinx (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oon835: Plagiarism is unacceptable here. Even disregarding that, the article is far too detailed and probably not notable enough. Furthermore, most of the content is unsourced. Feel free to work on the article as a draft and use the Article for creation procedure when you feel it is ready. — MarkH21 (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing plagiarism and can you please give me one more time to talk to you tomorrow my off day because I working now? Oon835 (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't plagiarize. I moved the articles to draft space at Draft:List of Ultraman: The Ultimate Hero characters and Draft:List of Ultraman Mebius characters. Feel free to message me tomorrow. — MarkH21 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Note that the Ultraman Wiki uses a non-commercial, no derivatives license, so you can't even use their text with attribution in most contexts. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC).

Sorry, I make a mistake my messaging earlier and the real answer is I not doing any plagiarism I just want to modify those words only you got to believe me because my smartphone automatically put a wrong words which I didn't know it. You got to give me one more chance to restore my Powered page back and lucky I still got my last backup before it was deleted. If you want me to draft the pages fine and I will do it. But tomorrow I want to talk to you some more thing and it's kind of long story. Oon835 (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright now I'm ready talk to you today. Here some problems:

• Few months ago, my 5 lego pages was deleted by Onel5969 because they are not notable & I must had follow the wrong example from the other pages. I asked Onel for help but he ignore me. Later, I when talk to Yosemiter for help he only give me a few details & I want to continue more discussion but he said that he's tried of it. I was angry with this 2 users but instead I still continue search some one for help and no answers still. Do you know about this 2 users?
• Where can I find the source books of Power Rangers & Lego?
• I made a careless mistake with my Powered characters page that I suppose to draft it but instead I went to the wrong actual page which I didn't notice it. It was half completed because I got interupted with my boss was calling me go to work. Zero stylinx blame me and said that it's my fault. But it's not my fault I just got careless only and I want to said that I'm sorry but he won't accept it. Lucky, he help me to fixed up my pages. I accept that you moved my 2 pages into draft pages instead of delete it. I still got my other 2 draft pages while waiting for the answers.
• About the Mebius characters page my ideas is to move all the characters from the main page into the new page so I can include the monsters and aliens together. But you said that you spoted one of the monsters that I plagiarised from Ultraman Wiki like the last time you told me that I plagiarised from japanese wikipedia. Yesterday, I already told you that I'm here to proof that I'm not doing any plagiarism or copy the whole thing I just want to modify those words and fix the gramatical error only it's because of my smartphone automatically put a wrong words which I didn't notice that.
• About the draft page if I finish my draft page so I select "Summit for review" and wait for the result right?
• I just don't understand one thing when I messaging to Zero stylinx in the talk page. He told me that I messaging him at 1 am at the wrong time and I never do such a thing like that before.
• There is one problem with edit the page when I used my smartphone because there is no edit summaries and what should I do? Oon835 (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Onel5969 and Yosemiter. I don't know where you can find reliable sources for Power Rangers and Lego, sorry. They aren't typically covered in great depth in traditional media, but you can ask at Wikiproject Anime and Wikiproject Comics, both which can certainly help you.
I didn't say that I noticed the plagiarism directly (that was Zero stylinx), but even starting with their material and then modifying it is not permissible, since the Ultraman Wiki is the original source and it is not reliable (in addition to potential copyright issues as Rich Farmbrough pointed out).
Yes, when you feel like your draft page is completely ready, you can click "Submit for review". Be sure that all of your content is cited from reliable sources.
Perhaps Zero stylinx is in a different time zone from you? I don't know, but it’s a complaint that you should completely ignore. Also, usually there is a box for entering edit summaries when you edit on phones. If you have problems with that then using a computer browser is not bad! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I did not just give "a few details", I gave them multiple links for guidelines and provided search results to show that the topics lack significant coverage for what this user wants (which appears to be various WP:CATALOGUE/WP:LISTCRUFT that fail to meet WP:LISTN). Perhaps there may be a language barrier for understanding the GNG, but it is not my fault they did not like the results. I can't make sources suddenly exist. Yosemiter (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you finish check all of the Zero stylinx's pages is their any unreliable sources or not? And I will be back next time. Oon835 (talk) 10:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Check which pages? Check them for what? — MarkH21 (talk) 05:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean checks all his Ultramen Characters pages whether is their any unreliable sources or any sources books are extremely difficult to verify. I want know how you verify all the source books and can you highlight for me which source books are very difficult to verify in my page? I forgot to tell you one thing that I'm glad you already told Zero stylinx that he is in the wrong for giving "orders" to me and other editors or use such language that can cause a real bad insult or very hard to get along with him is a biggest problems from very beginning until now. Early, he mistakenly thought I'm doing plagiarism and Edit warring you know I never do such thing. So I'm thinking that modify those words or fix the gramatical error it might not work because he will mistakenly thought I'm doing plagiarism. I didn't mean that I break his promises it's because I jump into the wrong conclusion. I have a problems talking to the other editors such as Yosemiter don't want to continue talk to me anymore and KenYokai was in the wrong for reverted pages that after I removed all the red links and dead links so I quickly told him that he's in the wrong revert pages. Oon835 (talk) 17:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to check all of the articles that he works on, no. Sometimes, large paragraphs of content have just a citation at the very end and it's not clear which parts of the paragraphs come from where. In particular, most of the sources are in Japanese. Are you translating these yourself? Also, the articles are still far too detailed for a general audience. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

New User

Hello, I'm just a new user so I'm here want to know more about Wikipedia. Plth41 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox timestamps

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I just wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions were not quite right. When updating statistics within the infobox of a footballer, please make sure you update the timestamp at the same time, so that both readers and fellow editors know when the information was last updated.

You can do this by replacing the existing timestamp within the |club-update= or |pcupdate= parameter for club stats, or the |nationalteam-update= or |ntupdate= parameter for international stats. For articles that use a DMY date format, use five tildes (~~~~~), or for MDY dates, use {{subst:mdytime}}. This will generate the specific time the update was made.

If you have any questions about this, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite: Sorry! Slips my mind sometimes... — MarkH21 (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

DJ DX

Hello, I am sorry to bother you. But under wikipedia laws isn't there a rule where people can not just delete articles that were here for some time? DJ DX article was set for deletion but has been here for almost 6 years. If there is anyway how you could help improve the article and remove the AFD? I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylstarz (talk • contribs) 17:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vinylstarz: No, the time that an article has existed has no effect on deletion discussions. The only thing that matters, besides articles clearly about nonsense or blatantly profane, is notability. You can read about it here. Basically, a subject should generally be covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources. There are also other ways of determining notability, such as people who have won major awards such as a Nobel Prize. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So being on the front page of an etire state that owns many publications for the State of New Jersey isn't notable? If you go back and look at the deletion talk page one of your mods had the nerve to write he hasn't charted? Really!!!! Being on the charts is payola and costs about $40,000 so what are we really doing here on wikipedia now? It's a pay for writing about notable articles that have been published in publication? I am asking you to have some justification here about this situation because you seem very bright to understand what is really going on here. If you need a direct link to the front page of this newspaper I can send it to you. Vinylstarz (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vinylstarz: The NJ.com article counts, but we need multiple such sources. That's just one. Also please be calm in this discussion. The discussion considers arguments, not emotion. Being agitated and yelling at other editors only hurts your case. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your edition on San Uk Ling Holding Centre

Hi, for San Uk Ling Holding Centre, you and your "friend" 80.111.44.144 tried to remove the description "cell of horror" for San Uk Ling Holding Centre several times in a very cooperative manner. In your latest attempt, you claimed that you can remove the description "cell of horror" because it is only mentioned in the Chinese media, not the English one. Then you removed the entire section and all relevant references.

If so, I would suggest you to remove the following facts for San Uk Ling as well because the current sources and terminology description are only from the Chinese sources:

• "bone fractures" of citizens;
• some citizens were "beaten off the teeth"
• "intracerebral hemorrhages";
• "injured were delayed to be sent to the hospital".

I hope my suggestion to remove the above facts would help you to modify the article into the way you want. As a matter of interest, why are you so afraid of the description "cell of horror"?--Flag4567 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know the other user at all and I was not following past developments of the article. I removed it because it gives a quotation of a phrase that does not directly appear in the sources. Quotation marks are used for quotations. That’s all. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

@Flag4567: By the way, the IP editor 80.111.44.144 has been blocked for being a WP:SOCKPUPPET of a different user. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Quotation marks can also be used to highlight certain words and phrases of subjective comment, just saying.— User:pageseditor (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

And in these cases it implies a quotation. Removing ambiguity is preferred to having ambiguity. If needed, other forms of emphasis are preferred (see MOS:EMPHASIS). — MarkH21 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Questionable behaviour

It has been brought to my attention that you have engaged in several edit wars, in which your revisions were not always accurate to the facts. It doesn't matter how long you've contribued to the community of Wikipedia, but page protection would be requested to avoid further 'undo' attempts. Please avoid using irrelevant excuses to pick on other editors; it doesn't reflect well on you despite your 'positive talk'. pageseditor (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps you’re a bit confused, because you’ve hit “undo” 10 times at Hong Kong Police Force in the last day on unrelated edits while I’ve done it once. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I won't even respond to your comment above, which is blatantly not true. Everyone can check the page history and see what you've exactly done. I'm so sorry you had to justify your pitiful actions by pointing the fingers at someone else. Goodbye, Mr. Copper. pageseditor (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

You're literally the one who undid the first edits, and continued to undo. Oh well. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

BOT populations

I noticed that you changed my update regarding the Cayman Islands population on the following grounds:

"change pop ref to World Factbook to make ranking among British Overseas Territories consistent across articles"

With respect, the World Factbook is incorrect, both about the populations of Cayman and Bermuda which have been moving in opposite directions for years according to their own statisticians and the UK's. While I have not looked this up, I do not think that it is Wikipedia policy to use a source with incorrect information so that consistency of using that source is maintained across a group of related articles. A source with incorrect information should not be used across any of them.

Here is the reality: the UK, the sovereign administering power, has acknowledged that Cayman is now the most populous territory. That is the accurate statement. Not that the World Factbook estimates something completely different. If you would like me to provide you with proof that the Minister for the Overseas Territories has said this, I will do so.

Accordingly, I intend to make edits to both the Cayman Islands and Bermuda articles. I have no intention of getting into an edit war so I am contacting you here to explain. If this has to be fully debated with reference to policies and various sources I will do it, but it should be obvious that incorrect statements based on incorrect sources should not be made, even if the source is handy for the purpose. Legaleagle345 (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Right, I made those changes because the Cayman Islands article said that it is "the most populated British overseas territory" while the Bermuda article (where the figure was unsourced!) read that it is "the joint-highest of the British overseas territories along with the Cayman Islands." I understand that perhaps the CIA World Factbook may not be the best choice despite being used in numerous articles here and certainly an official UK source would be better. If you can find one then that would certainly be preferable! Note that the Minister for the Overseas Territories saying this probably does not count as such (as opposed to a published census or estimate).

On another note, what do you mean by my update? Do you mean this IP edit? Also I thought that this section was about bots when I first read the section title hah! — MarkH21 (talk) 06:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Yes I was referring to that IP edit. The UK has no better sources to my knowledge than the output of the territories' relevant statistics offices, which are of course, run professionally and produce their outputs according to proper methods. If the UK keeps what it thinks is better maths, then the statements of its relevant minister and top civil servant in this area carry even more weight. In my 15 years experience reading articles about the OTs as someone from Cayman, the CIA World Factbook has only ever been able to estimate anything roughly. It may say we have so many miles of road; six months later, we may have built another 20 miles of which no notice has been taken by the World Factbook. I doubt they have anyone measuring. Please see page 22 of this document: [[2]] wherein the following is said on 18 December 2018 to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:

"Lord Ahmad: First, you are right on numbers. I think Bermuda is probably the largest overseas—

Ben Merrick: Cayman Islands has taken over.

Lord Ahmad: Yes, Cayman Islands has just taken over."

[3]Ben Merrick is Director of the UK Overseas Territories Directorate in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. How can Cayman have just taken over according to our own statisticians and confirmed by the UK and suddenly, Bermuda has 6,000 people on us because the CIA World Factbook says so, despite years of economic mismanagement and retrenchment in Bermuda and years of growth in Cayman? I need to see proof that Bermuda at least has done some numbers of its own before those of our Economics and Statistics Office and the statements of the UK are challenged. The best relevant document I have been able to find is this document prepared after the Bermuda 2016 Census, which is a set of projections yet to be contradicted as far as I can see by anything to the contrary: [[4]] which states that:

"Bermuda’s mid‐year population is projected to decrease from 63,791 to 63,680.

• The annual growth rate is expected to change from 0.2% to ‐0.2%.

• The crude birth rate is projected to fall from 9.3 to 7.3.

• The crude death rate is expected to increase from 7.6 to 9.4"

It doesn't seem possible that in those conditions, Bermuda has in the space of 3 years, crossed 70,000 people, a population it has never had in its history. Again, the CIA World Factbook is not appropriate for this; BOT populations change with economic conditions in each territory and a few hundred or thousand people make the difference between first and second place; the CIA isn't doing the counting, the territories' authorities and the UK are.

Could you possibly do some more looking into this of your own so that we can agree or agree to disagree, if necessary? Legaleagle345 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, no sock puppetry was intended. I just hadn't logged in when I made those changes forgetting after many years away from Wikipedia that if you have an account you are meant to use it for everything. Besides, the changes aren't "problematic" - I just inserted the most up to date facts. Legaleagle345 (talk) 21:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look! A bit busy at the moment, but I'll get back to you soon. Also no worries! I didn't mean to accuse you of sockpuppetry or the like. I just wanted to make sure I knew which edit you were referring to. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there - I have some new information on this subject. We now have two equivalent documents, which are the Cayman Islands Compendium of Statistics 2018 and the Bermuda Digest of Statistics 2018. Cayman officially estimates its population at the end of 2018 as 65,813. See related news article: [5]. Unfortunately Bermuda does not seem to be keeping such good track of its population, as the 2018 Digest of Statistics only gives an estimate for 2017, of 63,921. Please note this difference of 1,892 people. Meanwhile the national newspaper of Bermuda has an article just this month questioning whether there are lessons for Bermuda in the Bahamas experience of Hurricane Dorian: [6]. That article gives Bermuda as having a population of "around 61,000". That estimate might be a bit low, but consider that it is an extremely recent article in the Bermuda newspaper of record.

The CIA Factbook simply can't be right about this, and I think the preponderance of the evidence from credible sources points to Cayman being the most-populous. I am afraid I do not regard the CIA Factbook as a credible source, as it seems not to use national sources but its own methodologies and tends not to register trends and small changes very well. It's a "rough guide" for CIA purposes and they aren't going to be paying attention to small British territories. It gives an estimate of Cayman's population of 59,613 as at July 2018. That is simply not possible. I live here and experience the congestion every day. As stated before, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has confirmed Cayman has pulled ahead of Bermuda and with these new figures, is now likely to be further ahead. Both territories are in the 60,000s but Cayman is bigger - and it certainly does not have 59,613 people as the CIA Factbook arrogantly estimates without looking at our own statistics and seeing that we had 63,415 people here in 2017, never mind July 2018. The source is just wrong.

I see that others have made changes to the British Overseas Territories article in respect of population. You may want to review those. All I would propose to do is put the Cayman and Bermuda figures I mentioned above as 2018 and 2017 estimates respectively. We could update with the Bermuda 2018 figure whenever they release it.

I plan to make edits accordingly, so please let me know where you stand on this. Thanks. Legaleagle345 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Legaleagle345: In order to make a comparison that makes sense though, we would need to use data from the same time. Given that there is no 2018 estimate for Bermuda, we could use the local 2017 estimates (in lieu of a single source estimate, e.g. CIA Factbook) of 63,921 and whatever the Cayman Islands government says for 2017. Comparing the 2018 Cayman Islands population and 2017 Bermuda population would not serve as good sources for "Cayman Islands was the most populous British Overseas Territory in 2018". To be sure though, we would also need to cite local data for the other British Overseas Territories in 2017 as well, since we are giving a statement on ranking the populations of the Caymand Islands and Bermuda across all of the British Overseas Territories. That's why using the CIA Factbook (or another single source) is just easier to do and maintain in the future since we would have to update these.
Just a comment on what you said: It gives an estimate of Cayman's population of 59,613 as at July 2018. That is simply not possible. I live here and experience the congestion every day. How can you possibly tell the difference between a population of 59,613 and a population of 65,813 across three islands and several towns from your daily commute? :) I also do not see how you can tell that the CIA Factbook estimate did not use local data. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)