User Talk: Marcus Markup

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Welcome!

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:

{{Clickable button 2|Help:Introduction|Learn more about editing|class=mw-ui-progressive|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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:

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Teahouse|Get help at the Teahouse|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

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

{{Clickable button 2|Wikipedia:Task Center|Volunteer at the Task Center|style=margin-left: 1.6em;}}

Happy editing!  47.227.95.73 ↗ (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

:Thank you! Marcus Markup (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
::Why did change my edit? Nothing wrong with it. Please stop doing that I am doing nothing wrong. Andrewworley048 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
:::You added content backed by an unreliable source. As a beginner, a little humility would be appropriate. Also, for future reference, new comments go at the bottom of people's talk pages. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
::You’re acting really sick. Consider taking a break. 2601:500:8688:8100:58A6:6034:26EC:AE74 ↗ (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

September 2023

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ 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)

25px|alt=|link= ↗ 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.  '''Z'''sohl'''''(Talk)''''' 12:54, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

: {{ping|Zsohl}} The source is already there. I said so in my edit summary ↗ I said, {{tq|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)

September 2023

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ 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)
::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)

November 2023

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ 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)
: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)

Only warning templates

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)
: 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)
: 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)

AA

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)
: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)

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.

Taylor Twellman's tweet on the Kansas City parade shooting

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

Info found in source vs speculation

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)
:{{ping|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)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }} Doug Weller talk 10:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request

{{tlg|unblock|reason=I am a sailor. The only way I can connect to the Internet is by a tethered connection to my phone, using TMobile. Evidently, editing using TMobile has been blocked. The advice banner says to "create an account" but I already HAVE an account! Is this SOP? To disable editing by extended confirmed users, because an anonymous IP is causing havoc? So hamfisted 🤦‍♂️ Marcus Markup (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)}}

Pinging blocking admin {{ping|HJ_Mitchell}} Marcus Markup (talk) 21:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
: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)

: 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)

Re: Obama

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)
: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)
: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)
::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)
{{ping|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)

:Dude, you are a HUGE douchebag 24.107.176.145 ↗ (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
::Go to bed, mom, you're drunk. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Attempted assassination of Donald Trump ↗

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

I was not trolling you

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)
:{{ping|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)

Omoluwabi Page

why are you deleting some Write up in Omoluwabi ↗ page?, thanks
:You continue to MOS:OVERLINK ↗ despite being warned multiple times that your behavior is unacceptable. Your behavior is that of a vandal at this point, and I will treat it accordingly. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

:first of all I'm Very sorry, I'm very sorry for my mistake, plz forgive, thanks you Marcus Markup, and plz what did you mean by MOS:OVERLINK ↗ WP:MOS, plz enlightening me on this if you wish to, I appreciate your feedback, thank you.. 105.112.17.92 ↗ (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:i will be expecting Your feedback thank you 105.112.17.92 ↗ (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

::I have advised you several times to read MOS:OVERLINK ↗ yet you continue to link words like 'courage' or 'community'. Which would be fine for one or two, but you're making entire paragraphs look blue. And what's really annoying is, after I clean up your work, you just go ahead and replace it. Me going WP:MOS ↗ was me expressing my exasperation at you. Please show you have an understanding of MOS:OVERLINK ↗ by not MOS:OVERLINKING ↗ is all I am asking of you. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I'm very sorry i will do better, forgive my arrogant towards the Page lately, I will do better, and i appreciate your feedback, thanks Marcus Markup 105.112.17.92 ↗ (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks Marcus Markup, 105.112.17.92 ↗ (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::I am thrilled to have made some significant improvements to the Omoluwabi page. With dedication and care, I have refined the content to better reflect the essence of this cherished Yoruba concept. I hope that my efforts will be well-received and make a positive impact on those who visit the page. My goal was to enhance the understanding and appreciation of Omoluwabi, and I am confident that my improvements have achieved this. I look forward to feedback and continued collaboration to ensure the page remains a valuable resource for all105.112.17.92 ↗ (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I can see your sincerity, and thank you for your understanding. The links in the current article now stand out: links to "Yoruba people" and "Youruba tradition" and the names of various revered people. Because the links are much fewer, those important links stand out, and readers will notice them. When there are a hundred links, people just ignore them. As they say, sometimes less is more ↗. Anyway, welcome to Wikipedia, and keep doing good work. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::Thank You Marcus, for the Enlightenment 105.112.17.92 ↗ (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Peter Brimelow page

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)
:I doubt I'm going to participate any further in editing that article or participating in talk, beyond reverting clear vandalism. I have enough grief in my life without inviting more. I wish you luck. Marcus Markup (talk) 08:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
::Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon. Cundebuff (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::Me too. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Marcus Markup! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive ↗! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Special:RandomInCategory/All articles lacking sources|Fix a random page lacking sources|class=mw-ui-progressive}}|style=margin:1em}} Cielquiparle (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks. This is a lot harder than I had anticipated. It will be my goal to complete one a day. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Critic Te Ārohi ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamish McKenzie ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

== November 2024 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award ==

{| style="border: 1px solid grey; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |
'''Citation Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray; width:100%;" |
This award is given in recognition to {{BASEPAGENAME}} for collecting more than 23.0 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles ↗'s NOV24 ↗ 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)
|}

:Thanks! That was a LOT tougher than I had anticipated. It was very interesting, getting to know certain sides of the internet and the encyclopedia that I would not have otherwise experienced... 10/10 would do it again! Marcus Markup (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

ANI notice

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ 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 at Wikipedia: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)
:I can only hope this whole affair does not have a negative impact towards my hopes of one day becoming an admin. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

25px|alt=|link= ↗ Please stop attacking ↗ other editors, as you did on :User talk:Vector legacy (2010) ↗. If you continue, you may be blocked ↗ from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''No matter what another editor has done, this ↗ is unacceptable.'' The Bushranger One ping only 09:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
:Fair. Thank you. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov.

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 that WP: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, ". Jeff'''UK''' 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:The links you are adding, which deal with pronunciation, are original research because they don't mention Kasparov at all. You are linking and providing supporting research, and drawing conclusions and adding analysis which is yours, and not from a third party. The encyclopedia does not work off of our interpretations, analyses, but rather, we cite the interpretations and analyses of others. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:The problem I have with your addition is, it injects your interpretation of the pronuctiation of Kasparov's name and how it links to Harry Truman's name into the body of the article. I realize it's 100% correct, but still, it's original research. However, I think such a thing would be encyclopedically sound if it were included as a true "Note" and I have done so ↗... I think that would be fine. There's already two "Notes" on pronunciation, and it looks like a good fit to me. Marcus Markup (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Overlinking at ''Das Boot''

I read your edit summaries there. While I am in deep agreement with your adherence to MOS:OVERLINK ↗ (a look at my last 500 edits will show you that is one of my priorities here), I disagree with delinking Adolf 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 per MOS: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)
:There is no need to start a discussion (or at least, drag me into it). I made it clear that you were free to Wikilink "Hitler" and I am quite sure you will find broad support for doing so... have at it; I will not be involved any further in the matter. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::I suppose you must have changed your mind. I read your comment here ↗, which you then removed. I definitely don't want to link the name because I am a fan of him, if that's what your comment means. Wikipedia is not censored ↗, it's a free resource for everybody in the world, and information about bad things and people is important. We also try hard to comment on the subject matter under discussion, not the presumed motives ↗ of other editors. John (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Feel free to link Hitler and let me be. Kthx. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::{{tq|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)
::::No, that isn't how it works. I've raised the matter of linking in the proper place so that those who care can discuss it there. I'm now talking to you about your behaviour. If you wanted to get away from me and not have to think about this any more, it would have been better not have insulted me in the first place, rather than to have done it then removed it. Please do better in the future. John (talk) 20:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::{{tq|I'm now talking to you about your behaviour}} I'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)
:::::Make your edit, drop the stick, go away. Please. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The Price Is Right ↗ article

I noticed you reverted my addition of webpage links to this article. I added http://priceisright.com as the official webpage. I'm not advertising about the show.
The other two links:

https://www.cbs.com/shows/the_price_is_right is a page where viewers can watch recent episodes with a web browser.

https://fremantle.com/shows/the-price-is-right leads to a "File not found" error message. This page no longer exists on Fremantle's official site.

Thanks for understanding. --NYC Guru (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:External links, when appropriate, belong in an "External links" section only. I went ahead and removed them. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

TDS - thanks

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 Weller talk 12:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

:Much respect. I admire your example. Thank you for all that you do here. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Captain America: Brave New World

I have reverted your changes to the Marketing section twice now and provided my reasoning as to why I disagree. As the one making the bold 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)
:I did not do a "reversion" here. Simply adding new verbiage ↗ does not require going to talk. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::You are clearly attempting to restore the article to your preferred version using lots of small edits, perhaps to hide what you are doing rather than outright reverting. That doesn't change what you are doing. You made the changes, your changes were reverted, and you have been asked to take your concerns to the article's talk page rather than start an edit war. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::I am not trying to "hide" a fucking thing. You are out of hand. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
::::Lol, that's a nice way to talk to someone. See you at the article's talk page if you care to be a contributing member of the community. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::When you literally accuse someone of being a dastard, expect to be called out on it. An apology would be appropriate. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''the Arab–Israeli conflict ↗''', 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system ↗.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 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 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 {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. }}
Trailblazer101 (talk) 10:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:Well, I had no idea that "Captain America: Brave New World" was contentious because of "Arab-Israeli" issues. Thanks, although my edits had nothing to do with that conflict, and I told you I was taking it off my watch list, I appreciate the heads-up. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::Actually, that's not correct... I don't "appreciate" the heads up, and feel it was completely gratuitous. Your really are into the finger wagging, aren't you? But as I said, have no fears... I am a man of my word and my shadow will no longer darken your article. Marcus Markup (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::This was merely a formal notice I was mandated to send out to recent new editors of the article. I have no ulterior motive here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::I have never heard such a requirement. How were you "mandated" to do this? Marcus Markup (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::I was simply following the directions explained at {{tl|Contentious topics/list/single notice}}, as arranged by the WP:Arbitration Committee ↗. I was merely doing my due diligence ↗. Trailblazer101 (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do you template every editor who is new to the article, if they have not been warned of "Arab-Israeli" issues with the article? Because if you do, I will apologize. But even if you do... it's kind of goofy to do it to an editor who has promised to leave the article and has not edited the article or talk page for a good while, and was not actually editing about "Arab-Isreali" issues in the first place. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
:::::::These are standard messages for whenever anyone edits any part of an article designated as a contentious topic. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions ↗, such as the edit(s) you made to :Saturday Night Live season 50 ↗, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted ↗. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines ↗. You can find information about these at our welcome page ↗ which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia ↗. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page ↗. Thank you. Wiiformii (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

:Molly goes by they/them pronouns not she/her pronouns. Wiiformii (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::That's fine. Thanks for the head's up. Your categorizing my restoration of call "them", "her", as "vandalism" as you did in your edit summary, is out-of-hand. Please exercise better judgement in templating editors and in your edit summaries. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::It's an unconstructive edit template, not a vandalism one. Wiiformii (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::You accused me of "vandalism" with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saturday_Night_Live_season_50&diff=prev&oldid=1278502542
::::I didn't know you weren't aware of their pronouns especially after claiming that your edit wasn't "disruptive" and reverting my edit. I thought it was in that case but if you truly didn't know then I was not exactly sure why the restoring on your end was necessary. Wiiformii (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::Fantastic. Stop calling editors with standing "vandals" in your edit summaries, when it is not called for is my only point here. Marcus Markup (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
::::::It's an auto message from the anti-vandalism software... if I had known you truly weren't reverting their pronouns by not knowing I wouldn't have used it but now that it's clarified it makes sense.Wiiformii (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::{{tq|It's an auto message from the anti-vandalism software}} You 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)
::::::::I thought it truly was, you reverted an edit of someone adding incorrect pronouns into an article then reverted my edit which reverted my edit of adding the correct pronouns again, so I was inclined to believe it might've been vandalism as you didn't explain you weren't aware until after I reverted it. Wiiformii (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::My edit summary was custom. I said: {{tq|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)
::::::::::Ok, the anti-vandal tool I used is clunky anyway so I'll follow through in abandoning it ifo Huggle or AntiVandal Wiiformii (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

The mistake on Naroditsky's page

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 excerpt https://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 into https://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)

:{{tq|maybe the best would be to write down the entire sentence}} Perfectly reasonable. More context would be fine. Have at it! Marcus Markup (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

April CECOT revert ↗

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)

May 2025

25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at :Dolton, Illinois ↗. Your edits appear to be disruptive ↗ and have been or will be reverted ↗.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute ↗ with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ↗.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines ↗, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges ↗. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
:Get bent. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ Your recent editing history at :Asmongold ↗ shows that you are currently engaged in an '''edit war ↗'''. An ''edit 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 the '''talk page ↗''' to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus ↗ 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 details how this is accomplished ↗. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection ↗.

'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing ↗'''—especially if you violate the three-revert rule ↗, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts ↗ 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)
:I think you need to find a little humility. You obviously have no idea how BLP issues are handled on Wikipedia, or what an "edit war" is. This is NOT Rational Wiki. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

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)
:Do what you feel is best for the encyclopedia. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

BLP "Vandalism"

Welcome to the drive!

Welcome, welcome, welcome Marcus Markup! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2025 drive ↗! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.
{{center|{{Clickable button 2|Special:RandomInCategory/All articles lacking sources|Fix a random page lacking sources|class=mw-ui-progressive}}|style=margin:1em}} Cielquiparle (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)
:Thanks! These are fun. This task is more difficult than one might initially think, and my goal will be one a day. Marcus Markup (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

== November 2025 WikiProject Unreferenced articles backlog drive – award ==

{| style="border: 1px solid grey; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 100px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |
'''Citation Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray; width:100%;" |
This award is given in recognition to {{BASEPAGENAME}} for collecting more than 21 points during the WikiProject Unreferenced articles ↗'s NOV25 ↗ backlog drive. Your contributions played a crucial role in sourcing over 6,000 unsourced articles during the drive. Thank you so much for participating and helping to reduce the backlog! ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:24, 22 December 2025 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you! That was a very interesting exercise. As it continued, and as the "low hanging fruit" was pruned by other editors, it became increasingly hard to find candidate edits. It was my goal to do one a day, but in the end, it was taking me about an hour to find any articles without sources, for which sources could actually be added. That was, in its own way, re-assuring to me about the state of the encyclopedia. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 60px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Half Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your well-thought-out responses and insightful takes on the role of blank short descriptions, which have been most enlightening for me. HKLionel TALK 13:14, 30 December 2025 (UTC)
|}
:Thank you! It has been a pleasure working with you to help improve the encyclopedia. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Marcus Markup!

<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75); box-shadow:.1em .1em .5em light-dark(rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.75), rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.75));" class="plainlinks">
left|x173px ↗x173px|right ↗
{{Paragraph break}}
{{Center|{{resize|179%|'''''Happy New Year ↗!'''''}}}}
'''Marcus Markup''', Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year ↗, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 '''''Volten''''''''001''' ☎ 15:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC) 
</div>
   ''{{resize|88%|Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.}}''
{{clear}} '''''Volten''''''''001''' ☎ 15:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you! And a Happy New Year to you, too! Marcus Markup (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey there.

Hello, Markus Markup. This is Poopdeck typing here (sorry if this was a late response, I spent about an hour revising it multiple times), and I cannot begin to apologize for the ghoulish and downright ''reprehensible'' edit I made to the Scott Adams ↗ page. Intentionally typing in two dates ''specifically'' anticipating somebody's death was incredibly insensitive in the absolute ''best'' of circumstances and projected as me actively expecting another man to meet his end as if it were a mere date on a calendar at worst. I feel disgusted for ever believing it was a good idea, a good statement, a good ''anything'' to think up, put out into the world for all to see, and just expect to be okay.

In the time I've had to reflect on my grossly inappropriate and unconstructive conduct, I have decided that the best course of action is to avoid any further edits on the Adams page. Permanently. Both in the here and now and (I lack trust in myself just saying this) long after he's gone. I have messed up, even made mistakes that nearly got me perma-blocked on here in the past, but an action this deplorable, an offensive, blisteringly venomous alteration that I will always look back on with shame and guilt as to how I forced myself to do such a thing, is something I feel I just can't come back from.

Thank you for reading. Poopdecktheoverlord (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

:If it was your goal to make my skin crawl, I must admit, you have succeeded. Marcus Markup (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
::I probably should've clarified that despite what my apology may suggest, I do not expect to be forgiven because, frankly speaking, I can't really forgive myself for what I insinuated about Scott. This response was made to express my remorse for what I did, and move forward with the knowledge to not try and pull something like this off again. I apologize if at any point it came off as a simple act of damage control that deflects blame instead of admitting fault. Poopdecktheoverlord (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)
:::Do not post again to my talk page unless it involves a matter of policy. Marcus Markup (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Scott Adams ↗

{{ivmbox
|1=On 14 January 2026, '''''In the news ↗''''' was updated with an item that involved the article '''''Scott Adams ↗''''', which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page ↗. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs ↗) 13:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)
|2={{Ambox globe current red}}
|imagesize=50px
}}

:The occasion of his death was really something. It was like... someone with a starter's gun shot it off, and it was a big race to see who could update the article first to announce his death. With no source. In a BLP. I felt like how Custer must have felt at Little Big Horn, fending off a waves of unsourced edits... savage editors with no willingness to follow policy at ALL! Someone said "Google it, bro!" and I did, and saw nothing about the death. Google, though... completely useless at this point. Someone else said, "TMZ!" and I said "GTFOOH!".
:The motto "Wikipedia is not an newspaper" (WP:NOTNEWS ↗) needs to go away, the same way Jimmy Wales statement that adminship is "not a big deal" does. It no longer reflects actuality. Wikipedia IS a newspaper to so many editors: "to hell with sourcing! We have to beat the New York Times!" 🙄 Marcus Markup (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

BLPs are contentious topics

link=|25px|alt=Information icon ↗ You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics ↗. Hipal (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
:I was already warned. It's above, on this very page. Do you normally use warnings so blindly? Because it's kind of rude. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::Apologies if you've been notified in some manner that's not showing up in the logs. You've been previously notified of other contentious topic areas:WP:CTOP/AP ↗ and WP:CTOP/A-I ↗, not WP:CTOP/BLP ↗. --Hipal (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2026 (UTC)
::Marcus, talking of ''"kind of rude"'', I came across this ↗ while considering an unblock request. I'll remind you that civility ↗ is a two-way street, and is a core pillar ↗ of Wikipedia's ethos. Civility is not an optional extra. Cabayi (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
:::Did I say I was perfect? No, I did not, and when I am not I am thankful for the correction. I got hauled into ANI ↗ for that, and left the process with my head held high, I don't mind saying. Marcus Markup (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
::::So you were. I didn't see an {{tl|ANI-notice}} here. The discussion reads more like you're not-as-bad-as-the-other-guy rather than hold-your-head-high. BUT, I don't mean to rake over the coals if it's already been reviewed. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 15:34, 9 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::Just so none of my fans think I was trying to pull a fast one... it's on this page under "ANI notice ↗". Marcus Markup (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Inline

Thanks for your willingness to put things aside. To be clear, I wasn't specifically trying to cite the guideline itself as justification so much as to explain what I meant by "inline attribution". The issue was, as I saw it, a pretty generic lack of NPOV that could've been rectified with some attribution. Consider, for instance, a sentence like "Donald Trump, who is a convicted felon, thinks that the US government should be tougher on crime". These are both true statements, and it probably wouldn't be hard to find a source that states both, but presenting them together is clearly meant to discredit the individual in question or point out perceived hypocrisy. '''''— An anonymous username, ↗ not my real name ↗''''' 05:43, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Reversion of Alan Watts ↗

I did my best to properly reference my citations, but I lack the competence to do this book reference without errors. I have been hoping that some more competent editor would fix the problem. Instead of reverting my edits, can't you fix these book references or find a Wikipedia editor who can do so? --Ben Best:Talk 16:28, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:Knowing there are errors with an edit, clicking "Publish Changes" anyway, and then expecting others to clean up afterwards is unacceptable editorial behavior to me... we are not your copy editor, and I hope this is just a one-off for you. Asking for help before clicking "Publish Changes", perhaps at the Village Pump, would be fine. Marcus Markup (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2026 (UTC)
:Help:Citations ↗. I use the Ref toolbor. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

62px|left ↗
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ↗ regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "None Pizza with Left Beef ↗".The discussion is about the topic :None Pizza with Left Beef ↗.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} — '''Fourthords ↗ | =Λ= ↗ |''' 21:21, 10 May 2026 (UTC)
:What a shit show that was. You starting a dispute resolution process, and then going on Wikibreak not even a day later, caused some issues. I understand that sometimes, stuff happens and you need to take a break, but while taking the time to update your user page and your talk page, to announce your break, the considerate move would have been to withdraw your petition for volunteer help at DRN. Enjoy your trout slap ↗... I recommend grilling it with lemon and herbs.Marcus Markup (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

30px|alt=Stop icon ↗ '''You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗, according to the reverts you've made to :Michael (2026 film) ↗.''' This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, avoid editing disruptively ↗, and try to reach a consensus ↗ – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:
# {{strong|Edit warring is disruptive behavior ↗ – regardless of how many reverts you have made;}}
# {{strong|Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.}}
You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page ↗ and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗ if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. {{strong|If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked ↗ from editing.}}  silviaASH '''''(inquire within)''''' 21:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)
:Explain to me how saying that people liked the movie is "undue"? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_%282026_film%29&diff=1354283720&oldid=1354279736 Because it seems to me that due weight would REQUIRE mentioning that audiences like it, to balance mention that critics hated it. Removing that fact, as you did, removes balance. WP:UNDUE ↗ says, '''"Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources."''' That is, of course, policy. Saying audiences liked it is one of the "significant viewpoints" that WP:UNDUE literally requires.
:The one other time I reverted the removal of the text in question, it was because the editor cited WP:FILMAUDIENCE ↗ which does not apply at ALL. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_%282026_film%29&diff=1354258635&oldid=1354255678 WP:FILMAUDIENCE details how a subsection entitled "Audience reception" should be handled. The IS no "Audience reception" subsection, so their rational for removal was a misreading of the guideline. Marcus Markup (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
::I apologize if I came across as overly harsh here and at Talk:Michael (2026 film) ↗; it was not my intention. (I do tend to get carried away at times as I'm an overly opinionated person; occupational hazard for an editor, I suppose :) I'll try my best to work on that in the future.)
::For what it's worth, I did do my best to provide constructive feedback on the sources you offered on the talk page and give details on what kind of sources I think we'd need. I am trying my best to help reach an amiable consensus, and I regret that in this case I seem to have unwittingly done the opposite.
::Disputes happen, there will always be disagreements just as a natural result of our work as Wikipedians, and I hope you don't take it personally. I know very well how stressful they can sometimes get, and I try my best to stay cool ↗, but I'll be the first to admit I'm not perfect and have made mistakes. Sometimes it's necessary to step back and return with a clearer head, or not return at all if you don't think you can handle it, as the case may be.
::I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing the encyclopedia and that you try your best to learn from this experience going forward, as I intend to do myself. Happy editing! silviaASH '''''(inquire within)''''' 22:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
:::{{tq|I hope I haven't discouraged you from editing the encyclopedia}} I assure you, you have done no such thing. Avoiding articles where you are participating will do. Marcus Markup (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Line breaks ↗ in the infobox ↗ at No Country for Old Men ↗

@Marcus Markup: This edit ↗ was: {{tq|Please stop making useless edits which have no effect on how the page is displayed}}. No changes to visual edit ↗ unless your diffs ↗ had been checked. Even featured article ↗ does not have any line breaks ↗ in the infobox ↗. —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs ↗) 05:23, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:The edit in question does not involve line breaks in the infobox. The line break in question is immediately ''following'' the infobox and has no effect on how the article gets rendered to users. Marcus Markup (talk) 06:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:One such edit is, of course, not a big deal and I normally let such things slide. However, the editor in question, who I reverted ({{ping|~2026-25778-75}}) has made 87 edits over the past five days, with only four involving content... all the rest have no effect on what is displayed to our users (e.g. their latest, from just a couple hours ago https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Finder_%28American_TV_series%29&diff=1356125660&oldid=1354759982). Such edits are useless and waste page watchers time, and I hate to imply potential bad faith, but such behavior is often done by those whose goal is get to 500 edits and extended-confirmed status (WP:EXTENDED ↗). Marcus Markup (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
::Any making changes to remove non-breaking space ↗ and/or add or remove line breaks ↗, but no changes in this edit. It is considered disruptive editing ↗, right? —KuyaMoHirowo (talk • contribs ↗) 07:42, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
:::I have given them a warning on their talk page that should they achieve extended-confirmed status by gaming the system, it can be revoked. Marcus Markup (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

''The Signpost'': 21 June 2026

<div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"><div style="column-count:2;"> {{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-06-21}} </div> <div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * '''Read this Signpost in full ↗''' * Single-page ↗ * Unsubscribe ↗ * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2026 (UTC) </div></div>