User talk:Marquardtika#BLP violations

--Rosiestep (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antonio Felipe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andres Ayala.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Why the hell u keep removing the notable persons colum? Bro like wtf is wrong with you.!!! 2401:8E00:400F:36C7:CD1C:C6F0:56CF:477A (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It's in her new book about her bisexuality. [https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/fox-news-kat-timpf-book-i-used-to-like-you-until-1236133025/]https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/fox-news-kat-timpf-book-i-used-to-like-you-until-1236133025/ Wlmg (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

:Then you should add the content/source to the article. Without that already being in the article, the category is unsourced. Marquardtika (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Question about my page. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Marquardtika! Just wanted to note my comments at Talk:Theresa Greenfield#Iowa Starting Line source on your user talk page as well, since I realize now that they're related to recent edits you've made on several articles (possibly also your edits on Courier Newsroom). Up to you whether you prefer to discuss here or on the article talk page. I appreciate that the underlying goal is to improve sourcing on articles about political topics – this is important to me as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

:Sure, I replied at Talk:Theresa Greenfield#Iowa Starting Line source. Marquardtika (talk) 15:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 20:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

I suggest that you write edit summaries so that it's easier for other editors like me to follow and know the reason for the edits. Nohorizonss (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

:I do try to use edit summaries. Is there a specific place where I forgot to do so? Marquardtika (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 18:46, 29 November 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sharon Weston Broome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troy Carter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'd appreciate if you addressed my comments on Talk:Mazi Melesa Pilip regarding your summary reversion of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mazi_Melesa_Pilip&diff=prev&oldid=1265433096 this edit]. I believe Pilip's stance on mask-wearing is relevant for inclusion—it is the issue for which she is arguably best known nationally due to the widespread press coverage of the mask law she sponsored—and that (in accordance with the policy of WP:NPOV you cite in your edit summary) my account of it fairly presented both her and her supporters' justification of, as well as public opposition to, the legislation in question. RecursiveCoda (talk) 22:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 17:50, 28 December 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hey, if you have time, could you look at Talk:American_Civil_Liberties_Union#Positions_section? and provide any input. Thx. Noleander (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:55, 26 January 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hello,

I have been attempting to update the Senior Leadership page for my client National Philanthropic Trust to mention updates to their current CEO Holly Welch Stubbing but I see that you keep reverting these changes. Can you explain why you are doing this? We would like this page to reflect current and accurate information about our organization and leadership team. How can we make this change in a way that it does not keep getting reverted back to out dated information? Thanks! Goldilocks981 (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Goldilocks981}} Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You should not be editing the page yourself since you have a COI. It sounds like you also need to follow WP:PAY. There are instructions at the link for how to disclose who is paying you. To request that other editors implement your suggested changes, use {{tlx|edit COI}} . I can tell you right off the bat that the edits you are making violate WP:PROMOTION--the writing should be encyclopedic, not akin to what you would find on a group's own website, and WP:NOTRESUME. Marquardtika (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop removing my edits about him in black face, please and thank you. Jamesminzesheimerpol (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 08:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

{{reftalk}}

Please don't attack living people as you do in this edit summary[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=1281319303], WP:BLP applies to all of Wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Information.svg Hello! I'm Notwally. I just wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the page :Government Accountability Project have been reverted because they appear to have added incorrect information. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave me a message on my talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. – notwally (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

--Rosiestep (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

= Updating Fistula Foundation ==

Hi Marquardtika! Just wanted to note my comments at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fistula_Foundation on your user talk page as well. Appreciate your diligence and will be suggesting edits via the Talk page moving forward. Thanks! Cinemadove (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Marquardtika, I saw that you recently did some work on the American Council on Education article and thought you might take a look at my edit request for Joan Gabel, who is a board member of the council and chancellor at the University of Pittsburgh. You can find the request here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joan_Gabel#Ideas_for_Career_section. If you agree with my suggestions, would you mind implementing them? Thanks, Navyblue1234 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan Gabel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dean.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Marquardtika, I'm working on updating Alexandra Dunn's article. I had made some edits on my own a few months ago (which you reverted) before I fully understood the guidelines for editors with a conflict of interest. Thank you for posting on my talk page explaining the process. I have disclosed properly and posted an edit request. Would you be able to review and make the edits if you agree with my suggestions? Thank you very much, ~~~~ PB 0073 (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 09:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Hi Marquardtika,

I have been one of the editors of the Waas article. I have absolutely no connection to or association with the subject of the article-- and I doubt any other contributors to the page have. I don't know how to prove that to you, since Wikipedia does not allow me to identify myself by name or anything else about myself. Thus, I and perhaps others are left to disprove a negative-- which seems impossible and unfair, considering you have placed that disclaimer atop the page, without seeking community consensus, or providing any of the contributors or editors the opportunity to even respond. It is demeaning and insulting and unfair to other editors-- even if your intent has been noble and to improve the bio-- to say this without cause, without providing any evidence, and simply doing so without saying a single word whatsoever as to why you want to put such a disclaimer atop the article, saying it should not be taken credibly. Wikipedia requires you to do so for even a MINOR change of any kind to ANY article, which does not seem to be the case for not just this edit but MOST of them on all kinds of things. Again, you probably have the best of intentions and desire to do good-- but fairness also requires that you provide some basis-- any whatsoever-- before broadly asserting that the article is tainted.

So, towards that end, can you provide that information or evidence now?

Here are a few reasons why I don't see any evidence of biased editing, or editors associated with the subject, or even getting paid:

1. The page contains information noting and quoting critics of his reporting about Bill Clinton by the Wall Street Journal, Evans & Novak, and the Weekly Standard. Nobody deleted this material or complained.

Howard Kurtz, now of Fox, jumped to Waas' defense, which seemed fair enough to include. The Starr report and other court filings appeared to vindicate Waas' reporting, yet neither I or anyone else added that to the page because it would add to the length too much-- at least in my case. It seems someone associated with the subject would have pressed for that. But I did not see it.

2. I looked at the contribs of the most active contributor to the page. They have made thosands and thousands of edits-- 8,000 or more-- on all sorts of subjects.

3. Waas has caught flack from the left and backers of Bill Clinton, for criticism for personally critiquing Clinton. I tried to include that but it was deleted. He gained recognition for writing exposes of the PLO in supporting and financing terrorism. He has defended the B'Nail Brith Anti Defamation League. When I tried to add these, they were deleted-- I believe for ideological reasons. Would you help me get those back in? The deletions btw were by marginal contributors to the article.

4. I have other info and information-- to back my position. But no time to add it right now...

Can you in the meantime provide ANY EVIDENCE to back the claim that someone was paid to write the bio, or associated with the author? If your case is based on conjecture or circumstantial evidence, can you provide those?

I can understand skepticism-- which is healthy. When I saw the changes you have made in the past, I believed the worst: You edited mostly pages of conservatives, and did hundreds of edits a day. My first and worst impulse was to ponder if you were an ideologue and paid. I was wrong! After reading your edits, I found them fair, thoughtful, and made with the best of intentions.

Can we work together on this and see if we end up agreeing? If we don't in the end, I would like to seek a community consensus? Maybe we will agree on our own! I look forward to the discussion. Gramarian29 (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:When I came upon the Murray Waas article I immediately noticed that it was overly long and detailed and looked to have been edited by someone with close knowledge of the subject. That's why I tagged the article. You have made 406 total edits to Wikipedia, 326 of them to the Waas page. You're the #1 editor of the page by number of edits. Nowhere have I accused you (or any other individual editor) of having a WP:COI. But the page's edit history suggests multiple edits by connected contributors. The article is rife with WP:OR and puffery, for example the section entitled "Notable assessments of Waas's journalism". We need to significantly cull the article so only the most notable and encyclopedic aspects of his life and career--those aspects covered in independent, reliable sources--are included. Marquardtika (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for acknowledging this: "Nowhere have I accused you (or any other individual editor) of having a WP:COI." Yet the tag remains saying: "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." The tag remains insinuating I, and other editors have such a relationship: even though you now say there is no such conflicting relationship. I am stating once again that I have absolutely no "connections" of any kind "with [the article's subject, and saw no evidence that was the case with other editors. Please be fair and remove the tag. Gramarian29 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::As to your edits, you might be surprised by this, but I agree with most of them. The article is bloated and long, and I look forward to working with you to do that. Working with other editors is not collusion, but collaboration. I hope to collaborate and work with you here-- and perhaps learn from each other. But you provide scant, if any detail, as to why you posted the tag prior to today, and now today why you often made similar changes without input from myself or others.

:::I think you should discuss with other editors in advance, major changes to this article, and not instantly revert what anyone else wants to change, revert, or add. No one person should be the final or only say. I propose we chat here or use the sandbox to try stuff out, and work together. Gramarian29 (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Finally, you have made some 28,000 edits in Wikipedia. Almost all are to biographies of conservatives or conservative institutions, and revert negative information. Someone could surmise from this that the sheer number of edits and similarity in edits suggest you might have "close connections" to those whose pages you edit. Yet it would be wrong of me, I am sure you believe, to rush to judgment about your character or motives-- and tag entire pages based on circumstantial evidence. Yet you have done exactly that to myself and other editors. We should all hopefully work together instead. Gramarian29 (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::If the COI tag bothers you so much, work on improving the article so we can remove it. I don't know why you're taking it so personally. COI tags don't implicate any specific editors. By the way, if you check the article's talk page, you'll see in the past multiple connected contributors have been added as having edited the page (check the top of the talk page). So the COI issues are longstanding. I'd suggest expending your energies on improving the article rather than on writing walls of text here casting cryptic asperions at me. Marquardtika (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sorry, I am not sure what "multiple connected contributors" are-- other than these different people edited the same page or article. I don't see some great conspiracy there or understand it. I would like to work with you to improve the article, but would appreciate discussing changes together and you not instantly reverting everything immediately. Could we do that? I am happy to work with you. Gramarian29 (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I asked my friend who has a better understanding of Wikipedia, and they said every single one of your edits on Wikipedia has been for prominent or wealthy conservatives or ultra conservatives-- always to make them look better than before, and that you edit so frequently you are likely paid or you do this for your work/workplace. Can you assure me this is not true? There is enough suspicion to go around on all sides! If you can do that, I look forward to improving the article w/ you. Gramarian29 (talk) 03:37, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Wanted to simply put this matter to rest completely and move on to editing together: Wikipedia guidelines state: "Apparent COI raises concern within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible." Once again you, not I, have brought this up, writing, "By the way, if you check the article's talk page, you'll see in the past multiple connected contributors have been added as having edited the page (check the top of the talk page)." Having now reviewed it, that allegation was made almost a full decade ago, about marginal contributors not on Wikipedia since then.

::::::::Once again to be clear, I have no association with the subject of the article or any COI issue.

::::::::To conclude this, can you too categorically state, that you as well have not previously or now received payment from anyone or any employer to edit Wikipedia on any subject-- and that your current employment, such as for a think tank, a publication, or political activist, entails editing for Wikipedia?

::::::::You've raised the conflict issue several times, so only fair both of us fully disclose any potential issue-- and then move on.

::::::::Having resolved those questions, we can hopefully proceed to edit. Gramarian29 (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Maybe you can get Murray Waas to write an exposé on me! I'd pay him myself for the honor, but sadly all of my checks from conservative oligarchs must have gotten lost in the mail, womp womp. Now stay off my talk page. I'm not going to engage with you further; you're clearly WP:NOTHERE. Marquardtika (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

You wrote: "Discussion that led to creation of this RFC is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Washington_Free_Beacon here]." It's archived now so it would be better to point to the archived copy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_476#Washington_Free_Beacon here]. I suppose I could change it myself and cite WP:FIXFORMAT but it's probably better if you do it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks, will do. Marquardtika (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

--Lajmmoore (talk 06:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging