User talk:Marcus Markup

Hi Marcus Markup! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 47.227.95.73 (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Marcus Markup (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Liberty Safe, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. glman (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zsohl. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Osama bin Laden death conspiracy theories, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Zsohl^(Talk) 12:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zsohl: The source is already there. I said so in my [summary] I said, per the Christian Science source, Islamic clerics had issues with the burial as well. The source is clear, and supports my edit fully. I'll go ahead and restore it, along with the other edits I was working on before this edit conflict. Marcus Markup (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.

Please exercise more care when reverting. If you disagree with an edit that's not obvious vandalism, it's up to you to explain why. Thanks, 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please exercise more care when templating. I did not categorize anything you and I were involved in as "vandalism". Marcus Markup (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Dolton, Illinois#Allegations of harassment and misspending. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not and have not questioned your motivations. I have no doubt your motivations are nothing but pure, and I am 100% sure you act in good faith. What I am questioning is your understanding and implementation of policy. Accepting or rejecting sources not on their individual merits, but on your personal opinion of their message is a competency issue for me, and I stand by my categorizing them as such. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need to put an only warning for vandalism on a new Talk page. Threatening a user right away with a block is not good-faith; it's easier to start with softer warnings to give them a chance to stop their vandalism before it becomes persistent. We are not here to scare users; only teach them our policies. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I disagree, and I believe my "only warning" templating was appropriate in this case. I would do it again. `Marcus Markup (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the IP in question has been banned for continuing to post racist vandalism. Good riddance. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit qualities as meaningless, seemingly arbitrary and too little to care about one way or the other, as well as impossible to fathom what satisfaction or reward is to be derived from insistence on such insignifica 5ive9teen (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in applying racial labels within articles is not insignificant. When "B" in "Black" gets capitalized (as was the case when I came to the article) the "W" in "White" does as well. This has been discussed by the community, and it has been decided that it's either one style or the other for a given article, but not both. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s pedantic, clinical and over such an odd thing to police, and the article is no better for it. Trust me, it needs help way beyond consistent caps. But, wtf, some obsess on things needing to match. Trivial, eccentric and harmless. So live how you wanna live.

I have a secondary source for the tweet: https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/nfl-stars-and-celebrities-react-to-shooting-at-2024-super-bowl-parade/ 159.115.9.47 (talk) 17:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll go ahead and put it back, with the new source. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you have removed a paragraph from talk:Gregorian Bivolaru. If found in sources (about his psychiatric evaluation) the mentioned paragraph wouldn't be a speculation. I think I've seen some sources mentioning ancient ideas re the purity of women. These ideas must have entered Bivolaru's unconscious, being part of his mindset. 109.166.137.255 (talk) 00:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@109.166.137.255: Yes. The purpose of the talk pages is to improve the article and if you have material which is sourced and you think belongs in the article, bringing it up there would be appropriate. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

Pinging blocking admin @HJ Mitchell: Marcus Markup (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd happily grant you IP block exemption but the block expires in about 20 minutes. Sorry for the hassle. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to linky the request since there's nothing to do at this point. Q ^{T C} 05:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is the consensus of academic scholars in political science that Obama governed as a Rockefeller Republican. Your assertion that the notion of Obama as a conservative is fringe is just plain wrong. Obamacare, his signature legislation, was based on a policy developed by the Heritage Foundation. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's talk about it on the article talk page, whaddya say? Meet you over there. Marcus Markup (talk)

Uh, why in the world would I talk about this topic on a talk page about the assassination of Donald Trump? You feeling ok? This discussion appears here for good reason. You are welcome to move it to my talk page, of course, if you don't want it here. But it does not belong on the Trump page. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I did NOT say that "Obama was a conservative". I said that SOME PEOPLE consider Obama a conservative, in order to highlight the nature of subjectivity. I can see now that engaging you was a mistake. I will withdraw, and ask that you knock it off with misattributing statements to me that I have not made, particularly on my talk page. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? It's not subjective as I said. I even showed you that Obamacare, what he is most known for, is a conservative health care plan. Liberals wanted universal health care, which we did not get. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas:Please do not post again to my talk page unless it involves a matter of policy. Marcus Markup (talk) 00:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you just reverted my edit, saying in your edit summary that WaPo specifically says "golf". I just read the (archived) article again, and nowhere in it do they even mention a rangefinder at all, golf or not. I then searched for the words "golf", "range", and "finder", with zero hits for any. Are you reading a different version of the article (I do not have a WaPo subscription)? Could you please copy/paste (here) what the version you are reading says? Is it maybe a different WaPo article than what is cited for that statement? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79: Here it is: https://archive.ph/s0dhc . Search for "golf". There you go. I'm one and done for tonight for this dumpster fire, though... have at it. Marcus Markup (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I see it in that version... no need to be uncivil, none of us (or, very few of us) get paid for our volunteer work here... I'm sorry that you think a question of verifiability is a "dumpster fire", maybe you should take a break and breathe if Wikipedia's standards are getting you this worked up? - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have gotten the impression that I am mad as hell, you would be correct. The WaPo (a purportedly reliable source) has just changed it's article without any mention of the change, like a reliable source would. Because I chose to use them as a source for my edit, and with vehemence, I am left looking like a newbie in the article. Next time a question of their reliability comes up for discussion, their sloppy editorial standards, as evidenced in this case, will be brought up. Sorry you had to get in the way of my triggering. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe, friend, breathe... no one is in any hurry around here to be right or wrong, maybe you should bring this WaPo snafu to the attention of WP:RSN? It seems like a rather important issue if they have multiple versions of the same article online. - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I may, once I put down the Macallan. Thanks for your advice. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you made assertions I found hyperbolic and perhaps motivated more by belief than facts. that's all I got here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attempted_assassination_of_Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1236523290 soibangla (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla:You were, and are, continuing to troll me. Please do not post again on my talk page unless it involves a matter of policy. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]