User talk:Markjoseph125

Welcome!
Hello, Markjoseph125, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I've noticed that you've made several spelling and grammatical fixes to articles. This is a great way to both contribute and familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. But it's best to avoid making such fixes in talk pages such as Talk:Zorn's lemma, because: If you see any factual inaccuracy in an article, or something that you think should be written differently, be bold and correct it. Also feel free to add facts which you think are relevant to an article. Again, welcome! -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Comments in such pages aren't meant to last or to be viewed by the general public, so your energy is best directed elsewhere.
 * 2) It can be considered impolite to modify people's comments in talk pages.

Recordings preserved in the National Recording Registry
You have contributed as an editor to the List of recordings preserved in the United States National Recording Registry. It is undergoing an overhaul according to the recent peer review that generated the following feedback. In addition to the changes there, it is undergoing stylistic changes that prevail at lists that have been selected as featured lists. Conversion to wikitable format began with 2002 today because most articles that reach featured list status are in this format. Feel free to convert additional years, add more columns, or add further details. Hopefully many of the editors who have helped edit this page to its pre review state will help improve it to a featured list quality level. I may not return to make further edits until next week. TonyTheTiger 21:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Danny Deever
I am conducting a reassessment of this article as part of the GA sweeps process. There is one minor issue - some citations have been tagged with page needed. My review is at Talk:Danny_Deever/GA1. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Nalo Hopkinson, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Bludgeoning at Afd
You voted "Keep" at the Emily Willoughby Afd; that's fine. There is a whole soup of things going on at the Afd, besides just policy-based voting. I understand your views of what is happening there, and why the Afd was raised in the first place; you've made it perfectly clear (over and over): There is ignorant and misguided demonization of a respected behavior geneticist going on, the online attacks are "simple character assassination", and "the *only* reason she is being considered for deletion is political". I get it. You don't trust the reasons the Afd was raised in the first place: "the 'notability' squib is mere misdirection"; and "this [Afd] is a witch hunt, pure and simple". You've quoted with amusement a post by a commenter at an online blog about "anti-woke racists" on Twitter who "then migrate over to wikipedia and argue for deleting her page there". Did I fairly represent your feelings about the Afd and what's going on behind it? I hope so.

However, none of that is relevant to an Afd, which seeks to bring in discussion about Notability and other policy-based criteria of the deletion policy to bear on the question. Others have tried to bring you back in line with policy-based considerations such as "comment on content not on contributors", or "Do not attack other editors with whom you disagree by calling them 'Lynch mobs'" and you indicated you "understand" but effectively derailed the policy advice by pointing out that others agreed with you: "a fair number of others have noted that the attack on Emily is politically motivated", not addressing the NPA concern at all. You made a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that "there are thousands of Wikipedia articles on subjects less notable than Ms. Willoughby". Rather than arguing established notability policy, you provided your own definition for notability criteria that ought to apply in this case ("It's a simple fact that Emily was co-author of an important book, and now has published a scientific paper"), but an Afd is not the right venue to argue a new standard for WP:Notability policy, and I'm sure you know that.

In a long comment, you started off with references to attacks on a blog editor, speculated on what the connection might have been between a Twitter kerfuffle online and the creation of the Afd at Wikipedia, speculated on the political motivation of Afd participants and "pretending it's procedurally based", speculated about coincidences of timing; assertion that "woke cancellation" is going on at Wikipedia, because "the idea that there is no political maneuvering... is untenable"; and culture war references to wildly o/t issues such as "libelously accusing a bakery of racism" and "renaming birds"; followed by a long section on "Woke anti-semitism" and how a promise to create an article after an Afd never happened; all of which goes to prove your theory about how "political pressure on Wikipedia" exists, and how " it's very difficult to believe... that that is not the case with Emily Willoughby", not one iota of which is remotely a policy-based reason either to keep, or to delete, the article under discussion, but just a fantastic digression into the rabbit holes which populate online social media and (true, or not) haven't the slightest thing to do with the Afd question, which depends on Deletion policy. You later doubled down with the comment that "I can multiply the bakery and bird examples ad infinitum." Please, don't do that.

There are so many violations of behavioral guidelines here, that it's hard to know where to begin. Maybe with WP:AFD: please don't make accusations about why other Wikipedia editors are taking part in an Afd, as you did numerous times. When others' views don't agree with yours, please do not attack them, or cast aspersions on their motivation, or make other accusations (accurate, or not). In your arguments favoring keeping the article, please don't make empty claims about why the article should be kept that have nothing to do either with Wikipedia WP:Notability or simply represent your opinion. Please stick to Deletion policy, and avoid I-just-like-it arguments. Your views about the article (and about other editors, and about online shenanigans) are more than clear; please do not bludgeon the Afd with repetitive comments, it's starting to become disruptive. It's not necessary to respond to every comment; everybody knows your position now. It's particularly unnecessary when you open your comment accusing editors with "becoming increasingly vitriolic", whether or not it is true. (I've examined their comments, and it happens not to be true.) It was that last comment of yours that finally persuaded me that I needed to say something here, because your behavior at the Afd was getting increasingly out of hand.

If you want to talk about your ideas about the interaction between online media and Wikipedia, whether it's canvassing at Afd's or something else, there are forums for that. If you want to talk about the WP:Notability policy, and how it should be more in line with your views of Notability, the forum is WT:Notability. If you want to advise another editor about a possible transgression of some behavioral guideline, the starting point is their Talk page (please bring diffs). Please do not raise any of these issues at Articles for deletion, it's not an appropriate use of the page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. No problem. Markjoseph125 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Question re: a comment
Hello Mark, I've been pondering a comment you made about me in an AfD stating that I was "vitriolic". I've gone through my contributions several times over the past 24 hours to see if I said something vitriolic (a very strong word according to the dictionary definition) and I do not think I expressed anything uncivil. I did politely warn you a couple times to focus on contents not contributors, to assume good faith, and to stop with the personal attacks, but that is not vitriolic or uncivil behavior. I am sorry if those warnings offended you. I've been working at AfD in good faith for years, especially in the area of Visual Arts, nor do I use Twitter and was completely unaware of any controversy there. I have a record of creating many articles on women artists, and clearly state on my user page that women in the arts and sciences is a long-time interest. I hope we can have a better understanding of one another moving forward. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2023 (UTC)