User talk:Marquardtika: Difference between revisions

Women in Red | October 2020, Volume 6, Issue 10, Numbers 150, 173, 178, 179 Online events: Annual Ada Lovelace Day celebratiaon: Women in STEM Contest (Oct-Nov-Dec): Women in Asia Continuing initiatives: #1day1woman | BLM/Anti-discrimination Help us plan future events: Virtual Ideas Cafe Join the conversation: Women in Red talkpage Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red | Opt-out of notifications Social media: Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

I have opened an RfC about a topic you have been involved with - you may wish to comment here: Talk:William_S._Stickman_IV#Request for Comment: Analysis of ruling in Butler v. Wolf Trying to reconnect (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Dear Marquardtika, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, especially helping to uphold WP:NPOV at the article about People of Praise. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! With regards, AnupamTalk 02:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: Thank you, much appreciated! Marquardtika (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Briscoe Cain. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.Template:Z187 felt_friend 03:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Marquardtika, I'm thankful for the wonderful work that you are doing at the article about People of Praise, which has been heavily edited in light of current events. The article of Sword of the Spirit has experienced similar edits, especially with regard to attempts to relate it to the inspiration of Atwood's novel. If you have some extra time, kindly have a look at it. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: I'll take a look! Marquardtika (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupam: You may want to weight in on People of Praise again, there is an ongoing talk page discussion. Marquardtika (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and commented on the talk page User:Marquardtika. I think that this article in the NCR demonstrates that People of Praise falls within the Catholic mainstream, and not as a fringe group that some articles seek to portray the intentional community as. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 18:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an ongoing discussion in the channel #wikipedia-en-help ^connect about your edits in People of Praise which resulted it being listed for a third opinion. Thank you! Heart ^(talk) 08:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HeartGlow30797: Thanks! I don't know what #wikipedia-en-help ^connect is but I can see on the article talk page that a third opinion has been requested. Marquardtika (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ironrange22 (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Looking for help on this one. KidAd has a history of revert on edits that he/she/they find objectionable -- and cites need for consensus. I've gone through Talk with them on Stauber's page to discuss rationale for the updates but get no engaged substantive discussion -- just obstruction and revert. Clearly a form of vandalism as described in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism[reply]

You offered to help me construct an RFC on a content controversy related to Coral Thiell on the People of Praise article. Thanks for the offer. Here is a sandbox of what that RFC could say based on me trying to understand the RFC rules. Could you please take a look at it? Thank you so much. Novellasyes (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Novellasyes: I think it looks good. I think you should go ahead and launch it since it's timely and I noticed that Hodgdon's secret garden was making relevant edits to the article today. It would be good to get a consensus on this. Marquardtika (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If I understand correctly, I put this on the POP talk page in a new section, with the RFC template on it. Is that right????? Novellasyes (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I would use {rfc|reli} so it goes in the religion category. Then you can publicize it in various places, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Theology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. Marquardtika (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, usually the person who posts the RFC leaves the first "vote." So you can add your own opinion under the RFC posting. And then you might want to create sub-sections underneath for "Survey" and "Discussion." Marquardtika (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I got it posted! Talk:People of Praise#RfC on Coral Thiell. Thanks much for your help here. Novellasyes (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Gade is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Gade until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melanie Whelan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Whelan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have watched as you have systematically removed a number of legitimate additions to the page of Leonard Leo. Various users have edited these sections to adhere to Wikipedia norms on Point of View, Tone, and other such matters. Many of your edits have removed from public view on-the-record quotations from Leo himself, as well as diligently researched information provided by major news outlets, including the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. This is valuable information, and it should be available to the public. Moreover, you have also made the page less clear and more difficult to understand by stripping away sub-headings and crowding the entire entry into one long block of text. This is a disservice to readers and may constitute vandalism. I wish to assume good faith on your part, however, and I therefore kindly offer you the opportunity to chat before I take further steps.

--Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Publius In The 21st Century: are you related to 2A00:23C7:7700:4800:4993:49B2:D5D2:C210 (talk · contribs) and/or 2A00:23C7:7700:4800:15FB:E74E:B538:F89B (talk · contribs)? Marquardtika (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: I know this individual in real life, and was alerted to your disruptive behavior on the page of Leonard Leo as a result. This individual was discouraged by what seemed to be your subtle vandalism and decided that dealing with you was a waste of time. I feel differently and decided to engage. I feel confident that, if we are both acting in good faith, we can reach a compromise according to which, at a minimum, well-sourced or on-the-record quotations are able to be included on Leo's page. What do you think? Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Publius In The 21st Century: What you are describing is meatpuppetry and it's not advisable. Marquardtika (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: I am afraid you are mistaken. Is is clearly stated in the definition you sent, [WP:MEAT|meatpuppetry]] requires solicitation. Against the advice of the individual in question, I decided to join the Wikipedia community to engage you in good faith. This is in fact the opposite of solicitation. I therefore kindly request you withdraw your suckpuppetry allegation against me on my page, and would appreciate an acknowledgement that you are incorrect in this allegation as well. Ready now to engage in good faith on the topic of Leonard Leo's page?Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marquardtika: Incidentally, are you related to 2601:282:4402:43d0:95d2:f680:5bc9:157b (talk · contribs), which has now been banned?

Am I related to an account that repeatedly vandalized a page with Jeffrey Epstein related BLP violations so egregious that they were redacted by an administrator? No. Marquardtika (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree he has taken an extensive and extreme interest in partisanship protection of any conservative page without notification to prior editors. Signed HBass881 (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see below for details. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Please follow Wikipedia rules and cease the disruptive editing. Thank you in advance Signed HBass881 (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HBass881: diffs or it didn't happen 🤷‍♂️ Marquardtika (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@marquardtika You can be smug and unctuous, I am simply reminding you that what you are doing as it relates to several articles most notably Leonard Leo seems to constitute vandalism & is disruptive. Continued disruptive behavior will be remedied so that Wikipedia remains a vital non biased factual source. Thanks

Signed HBass881 (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

🙊 HBass881 (talk) 01:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued vigilance here; I am a relatively new active participant in the Wikipedia community, and I worry that Marquardtika has been operating in a manner that does not formally violate Wikipedia's rules but, regrettably, may run contrary to its spirit of providing information to the public in good faith. Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]