User talk:Marcus Markup
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Hi Marcus Markup! I noticedyour 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:
Alternatively, thecontributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing!47.227.95.73 (talk)23:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciateyour contributions, but in one of your recent edits toLiberty Safe, it appears that you have addedoriginal 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 encompassescombining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite areliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at thetutorial on citing sources. Thank you.glman (talk)13:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mZsohl. 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 toinclude 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 onmy talk page. Thanks.Zsohl(Talk)12:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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 asvandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism candiscourage editors. Please seewhat is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you.
Please remember toassume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do onTalk:Dolton, Illinois#Allegations of harassment and misspending. Thank you.Magnolia677 (talk)22:59, 12 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 notgood-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]
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 insignifica5ive9teen (talk)01:34, 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]
Hi, I see you have removed a paragraph fromtalk: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]
You have recently edited a page related topost-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
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 topicsprocedures you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Doug Wellertalk10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock}}
Pinging blocking admin@HJ Mitchell:Marcus Markup (talk)21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the consensus of academic scholars in political science that Obama governed as aRockefeller 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 theHeritage Foundation.Viriditas (talk)00:44, 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]
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=1236523290soibangla (talk)05:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
why are you deleting some Write up inOmoluwabi page?, thanks
Hi Markus Markup! I cited a reliable source on that Brimelow is an author and journalist and I also edited his birthplace being part of another county in England. But a user named Grayfell just undid it with no justification.
One just give up when they keep doing this?Cundebuff (talk)08:00, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, welcome, welcome Marcus Markup! I'm glad that you are joining theNovember 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
Cielquiparle (talk)07:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedCritic Te Ārohi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageHamish McKenzie. Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk)19:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 | Citation Barnstar | |
This award is given in recognition to Marcus Markup for collecting more than 23.0 points during theWikiProject Unreferenced articles'sNOV24 backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 8,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! –DreamRimmer Alt (talk)18:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
Coming to a talk page, telling another editor to "suck a bag of dicks" is not a way to win others over to your POV, but is instead a sure way to instigate a report to Santa's elves atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about vandalism which, judging from your user page, is a thing you do not value. I wish you would stop it. Merry Christmas.Vector legacy (2010) (talk)18:09, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasestop attacking other editors, as you did onUser talk:Vector legacy (2010). If you continue, you may beblocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.No matter what another editor has done,this is unacceptable.The BushrangerOne ping only09:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's unclear how "Garry Kasparov" can be named after someone called "Harry". I've added a note to explain that the H in Harry is often pronounced as a 'G' sound to resolve this confusion. This is supported by the sources. How exactly is thatWP:OR? That 'Harry is pronounced the same as Garry' is literally the entire subject of the source I added, and even goes so far as to say ", the name switch goes for all Harrys, ".JeffUK00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read your edit summaries there. While I am in deep agreement with your adherence toMOS:OVERLINK (a look at my last 500 edits will show you that is one of my priorities here), I disagree with delinkingAdolf Hitler. It is not in any of the categories the guideline recommends not linking, it is not linked elsewhere in the article, and as the political leader of the fictional submariners in the film, may provide interesting and relevant background for readers. Rather than revert you again, I will start a talk page section to see what others think. I'm going to restore my image formatting edit perMOS:IMGSIZE which I presume you undid in error. See you at article talk, and thanks for caring about overlinking.John (talk)17:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read your comment which you then removed.Yeah, I did. To get away from you, and to remove the issue from my cranium. So go ahead and link "Hitler" and leave me alone.Marcus Markup (talk)20:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now talking to you about your behaviourI'm talking about you making your edit, and dropping the stick. What, exactly, is your issue at this point, and why do you continue to provoke me?Marcus Markup (talk)20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you reverted my addition of webpage links to this article. I addedhttp://priceisright.com as the official webpage. I'm not advertising about the show. The other two links:
Thanks for understanding. --NYC Guru (talk)11:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should have looked into it more, the authors certainly aren't reliable sources thus the doubts about MDPI apply and the source is not reliable.Doug Wellertalk12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your changes to the Marketing section twice now and provided my reasoning as to why I disagree. As the one making thebold change to the article, the onus is on you to take your concerns to the talk page and gain consensus for the changes rather than continuing to revert. -adamstom97 (talk)15:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have recently edited a page related totheArab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated ascontentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics anddoesnot imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious 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 theArbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipediaadministrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should editcarefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.
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 topicsprocedures, you may ask them at thearbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topichere. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the{{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Trailblazer101 (talk)10:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more ofyour recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made toSaturday Night Live season 50, did not appear to be constructive and have beenreverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with ourpolicies and guidelines. You can find information about these at ourwelcome page which also provides further information aboutcontributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please useyour sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message onmy talk page. Thank you.Wiiformii (talk)21:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an auto message from the anti-vandalism softwareYou need to stop using that software, then, until you understand and agree with the edit summaries it is outputting.Marcus Markup (talk)21:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit does not appear to be "disruptive". Restoring.. That showed some class, I thought, unlike you blasting me with a "Vandalism" edit summary by your software. Anyway, enough is enough... I'm moving on.Marcus Markup (talk)21:53, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I edited the page on Daniel Naroditsky to change “referring to Kramnik as "worse than dirt",” which I believe is a mistake and misrepresentation. This is simply because that's not what he said and he even clarified elsewhere that it was not what he meant. The exact verbiage was "Cheating in my mind is one of or probably the worst crime a chess player can commit, it is a reputation ending crime to do it as a Grandmaster, but to do what Kramnik has done and what everybody who supports him have done, in my mind, morally, it makes you worse than dirt.". He's clearly calling out the behaviour ("doing this bad thing makes you a bad person" is different from "that guy is a bad person") and reducing it to "Kramnik is worse than dirt" makes it a more personal attack than it is intented to be (although it's clear that he's very upset by the man).
Unfortunately the original video of the interview is down, but here's the relevant excerpthttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cB7adZp1Bc and here's a clarification by Naroditsky that he doesn't take back what he said but would like people to hear what he actually said and not what it's been morphed intohttps://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1hq5hdh/i_feel_like_take_take_take_just_wants_to_be_the/m4n8g7j/
If after that there's still dissention on the interpretation of that sentence, maybe the best would be to write down the entire sentence and allow readers to make up their own mind on how they intend to interpret it?82.65.34.127 (talk)09:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
maybe the best would be to write down the entire sentencePerfectly reasonable. More context would be fine. Have at it!Marcus Markup (talk)11:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for self reverting your revert, but it is more respectable to put something in you edit summary to counter your previous language.MasterTriangle12 (talk)12:35, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did atDolton, Illinois. Your edits appear to bedisruptive and have been or will bereverted.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia'spolicies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result inloss of editing privileges. Thank you.Magnolia677 (talk)10:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history atAsmongold shows that you are currently engaged in anedit war. Anedit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly changing content—in a back-and-forth fashion—back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use thetalk page to work toward creating a version of the page that representsconsensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this stage is to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand, not to engage in edit-warring. Wikipedia provides a page that detailshow this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevantnoticeboard or seekdispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporarypage protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you beingblocked from editing—especially if you violate thethree-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than threereverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Protectron123 (talk)20:11, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion. If you source your information when you add the info, editors like me won't waste time undoing it prematurely. :)milladrive (talk)23:35, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty confident these diffs[1][2][3][4] would get you laughed out ofWP:AIV. You don't have free rein tobite when an IP doesn't follow BLP. Remove unsourced content promptly, but don't do this[5][6][7][8]. Just a word to the wise. —Rutebega (talk)18:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome, welcome, welcome Marcus Markup! I'm glad that you are joining theNovember 2025 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
Cielquiparle (talk)13:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
TheArbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting theWikipedia 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 imposesite bans,topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. Thearbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:58, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]