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]

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)[reply]

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)[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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

i will be expecting Your feedback thank you 105.112.17.92 (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks Marcus Markup, 105.112.17.92 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank You Marcus, for the Enlightenment 105.112.17.92 (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon. Cundebuff (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Marcus Markup (talk) 11:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Cielquiparle (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		Citation Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition to Marcus Markup 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)[reply]

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)[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 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fair. Thank you. Marcus Markup (talk) 18:39, 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 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, ". JeffUK 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Feel free to link Hitler and let me be. Kthx. Marcus Markup (talk) 19:56, 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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Make your edit, drop the stick, go away. Please. Marcus Markup (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]