Marquardtika

Hey, Craig Newmark here. You helped out with my rewrite of the Early life section over at my biography article. I've proposed a rewrite for the Personal life section here. No responses yet, thought I'd check, with respect, if you're interested in reviewing another section? Many thanks, Cnewmark (talk) 12:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

  Please do not add content which gives undue weight to some statement about a living person. On Wikipedia we take particular care over articles about living people.

New information, even if referenced, should be added only if noteworthy, relevant and documented in multiple reliable third-party sources. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and material should not be added if it is only gossip or has little longer-term importance, or if the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.

If challenged, the onus is on the editor who adds the content to justify its retention. Thank you.

P.S. WP:RSP never said that E! was generally reliable for celeb news. KyleJoan^talk 01:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@KyleJoan: WP:E! "It is generally regarded as usable for celebrity news." Marquardtika (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Rosiestep (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Rosiestep (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Hello.

Is this a copy paste error from your side? Who is Chabot?

188.151.17.188 (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@188.151.17.188: it is indeed! Thanks for catching it. I fixed it. Marquardtika (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw you put in accusations of sexual assault against Eugene Gu in your edit to Zina Bash's BLP. Upon further investigation I saw that you were aggressively editing Gu's BLP to include accusations of sexual assault that a unanimous RFC forbade. Please refrain from tendentious editing and look up our policies on WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME. Thank you. TrueQuantum (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe Eugene should have looked up the BLP policies before he used his public platform to falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol. As for the accusations of sexual assault, it's right there in the reliable source: "Eugene Gu, a prominent anti-Trump doctor who recently made news when he was accused of sexual assault..." Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Seeing as how Gu isn't a Wiki editor, it's strange to say that he should have looked up the BLP policies. Sounds like you have an axe to grind against Gu that makes you ignore RFC consensus and then attack him in Zina Bash's Wikipedia page to get revenge on him using his "public platform" to "falsely accuse a Mexican Jew of flashing a white power symbol." I highly recommend you refresh yourself on the 5 pillars and WP:BLP policies. Please discontinue the tendentious editing that is clearly motivated by feelings of retaliation and desire for retribution. TrueQuantum (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I agree with TQ on this. Attic Salt (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Everything I've added has been impeccably sourced. I'm actually correcting BLP violations. Marquardtika (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please stop the POV editing at Zina Bash and John Bash's pages. I can see from your edit history that you are actively scrubbing all mention of Bash's highly publicized white power hand signal displays and warring with many different editors on various pages. NeneCaretaker (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've now taken the repeated addition of the WP:BLP-violating material in the Zina Bash article to WP:ANI. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AndyTheGrump: Thanks for doing this. Le sigh....Marquardtika (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Gibson Dunn. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Kleinpecan (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Kleinpecan: Thank you for the note! I did try to move the page, but wasn't able to, so I see that I should have requested a move instead. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Marquardtika (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

--Rosiestep (talk) 22:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC) via MassMessagingReply

Reads=

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

How does the Seattle law article meet any of the exceptions?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The content in question is here. First, since two other editors have reverted the material, it's not wise to restore it. There's not consensus to do so. As for SPS, the material is indeed unduly self-serving and therefore promotional. The article is also based too heavily on self-published sources. Higher ed articles on Wikipedia are notoriously promotional, and this article in its current form is a good example. Listing out all of the different scholarships given by the school using only the school's own website is a WP:NOTDIRECTORY issue. We're not the school's website. Unless a third party covers these scholarships, there's no reason to think they are notable enough to cover here. The language used is textbook promotional: "Consistent with the school's mission of preparing students who are committed to contributing to the common good by shaping an equitable legal system..." Marquardtika (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Thank you for reverting my edit to Nadler's page. I'm a fairly new editor & hadn't thought about how it was WP:OR. Although I still think what I wrote is accurate, I think your right that it does not belong on his Wikipedia page -- or at least not in the form I wrote it in. Thanks for helping me become a better editor. : ) Cuvs