User talk:Mark Miller

Uhhh...

What's this all about? ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind I see you've reverted. Was afraid it was on purpose for something. ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. I have returned the version to your fix. However after your fix (which I have no idea where all those lines came from, they were there when I arrived today) collapse boxes don't collapse.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

They came from this edit. Odd about the boxes... ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried a few show/hide links (nearer the top of the page) and they seem to be working for me. Maybe restart your browser or something? ¦ Reisio (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

That's probably it.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

nobody agrees with you that the minor version is what you call major

so stop changing my edits randomly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 06:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waveclaira (talk • contribs) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rethink?

Would you care to rethink this series of edits. You have chosen to closed a query very rapidly and your tone is absolutely appalling. Do you have any experience of sourcing issues for Indic articles? Are you aware of my experience? Or is it just that you're having a bad day? - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. No, I don't believe a re-think is needed. You asked a question at RS/N with the excuse "the man is some sort of Sikh hero and it does not go down well with Muslims" And so I ask agian..."Yeah...and? Why is it important to you that one religion is offended by a figure from another religion?" You may note that the question was indeed answered. I closed that to keep the discussion from becoming about one religion being offended by another religions "Hero". Whether that is true or not...that was not the place to raise that issue and ptting one religion against another on the open boards is "absolutely appalling". We have enough of that going on here. I'm having a very good day. How about you?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Lets try rephrasing that with other religions and see how that sounds.

"the man is some sort of Christian hero and it does not go down well with Jews"

"the man is some sort of Jewish hero and it does not go down well with Christians"

"the man is some sort of Muslim hero and it does not go down well with Christians, Jews or Sikhs"

Doesn't look any better.

I might also remind you of Wikipedia:Offensive material--Amadscientist (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, we'll have to disagree. I live both physically and metaphorically in the region of Malleus Fatuorum: sometimes, we have to take the bull by the horns rather than pussyfooting around. It is ok to call someone, for example, a "Hindutva POV warrior" without censure in the full glare of ANI but not ok to say that there is a serious Hindu/Muslim conflict on the article etc at RSN? If the statement is factually correct then it should remain. The desire for editor retention does not over-rule producing a neutral, reliably sourced etc encyclopedia. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't care where you live. I don't know what you are talking about. You made an innapropriate post. I went back to re-open it, just because you came here to ask about it, but an admin has done so. We shall take this to that location now.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If it was inappropriate, and you clearly feel strongly that it was, then I suggest that you report me for that inappropriateness. Otherwise, you should apologise. - Sitush (talk) 09:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

It was. Now...what do you feel you deserve an apology for? If appropriate, I have absolutely no problem giving it. At the moment I don't see it.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I can see you are thinking this through and will not assume you just walked away after demanding an apology for my perception of an open attack against a religion and their "Hero" on the RS noticeboard.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not thinking anything through - stop trying to read my mind. Your attitude is sooooo wrong it is incredible. You took this to my talk page, where I said that I had to go out to do some work. That is true - do you want me to provide a letter from the client to that effect? I am off to a hospital appointment soon - do you want me to provide a copy of my appointment card. God, do you realise how ridiculous you sound? I have explained further on my talk page but I suggest that you take a long, hard look at yourself and your recent actions before you start casting asperions. - Sitush (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I hardly think I need to take advice of this nature from one who refuses to do the same. Your talk page and mine are exactly for this sort of thing. Look in the mirror yourself and ask if you did anything innapropriate to create an impression that you may now feel you don't deserve. What you do on your own time is of no interest to me (well actually if were a civil conversation I wouldn't mind knowing) and you need not do anything at any particular speed, but when you stopped replying when I gave you a civil request to explain what you think I should aplogise for, it just made me think you had no real interest in an apology.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay everyone, let's relax, shall we? Somehow, things got blown way out of proportion here. I'm not the best mind-reader either, but to me, the two of you really seem to be talking past one another--it looks like Sitush said something ambiguous, and then Amadscientist interpreted it as being offensive. But I doubt that Sitush meant to be offensive, though I can kind-of see how Amadscientist interpreted it that way. If I could guess, I'm supposing Sitush was saying that Nalwa is a hero to Sikhs, while Muslims don't like Nalwa (or don't like him being viewed as a hero, I'm not exactly sure). As a result, there's two clear POVs here...specifically, religious POVs, which means that we have to be extra cautious when we look at sources because both sides may 1) not understand WP's NPOV, V, and RS rules, and 2) may not care about said rules enough and be more concerned with pushing their side's own perspective. Having worked with Sitush in articles related to Indian castes for a while, I can vouch that it happens all of the time that interested parties will try to use sources that clearly don't meet WP:RS but continue to insist that it must be true, because it matches their deeply held beliefs. Note, I'm not saying that this is necessarily worse than other topic areas--I've certainly seen Christian POV warriors attempt to bury articles in sources that don't even approach RS-quality...I'm just saying that I know that this does certainly happen in Indian articles a lot. So I think that Sitush was merely giving background into why the source was concerning; a concern which, after reading his explanation, I share. But your questions (at least some of them) on RSN are valid, Amadscientist, because we'll need to narrow in on what the source is being used for in order to determine whether the facts being "verified" aren't being unduly influenced by the publisher and author's prima facie bias. In any event, I think some WP:TEA would do everyone some good here. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Beans

Regarding your closure of the DRN regarding self-determination, I don't believe you actually grasped what the issues were. Were this simply to relate the facts of a historical event then, it is important to realise there were two populations resident at the time.

A) The settled population, in the settlement established by Luis Vernet. B) The garrison that had been there less than 3 months.

There is no disagreement amongst historic sources that the garrison was expelled by the British and if you check the article Self-determination#Falkland Islands, this is in fact what the article already says. In this case is there any need to mention duress, surely expelled is enough?

However, as part of its case for sovereignty, Argentina claims the settled population was expelled to be replaced by British settlers. This claim is untrue, the population were not expelled and again there is no disagreement among the historical sources. There are plenty of texts to repeat the Argentine claim and in the case Gaba and Langus were deliberately confusing garrison and settlement.

The edit they tried to force into the article attempted to mislead and took it in a direction away from NPOV. They tried to edit so that the historic record became simply a British claim, presenting it as two conflicting viewpoints, when in fact there is no discrepancy in the historical record among all nationalities. Point of fact, the British case does not depend on this at all. They've simply grasped onto duress as a new stick to force their opinions into articles. Now the population left under duress. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Hi, Could you check the RSN again. Under third-party reliable source entry that I had opened. Thank You--24.94.18.234 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)