Markj573

Welcome!

Hi Markj573! 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! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 18:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

Hi Markj573! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hamites several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hamites, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok the page is currently on waiting list of 3rd party dispute Markj573 (talk) 10:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I made modifications to try to have the section conform to wiki standards. When I said I wouldn’t edit I didn’t know I would find a secondary source. I don’t think I can improve it further Markj573 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The current version is “ Samuel Morton and colleagues revised views on race of the ancient Egyptians and North Africans” Markj573 (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Link to latest version of proposed changes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamites&oldid=1168068500 Markj573 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Nick McKenzie

You have a history of edit warring so what's happening on Nick McKenzie's page is you being true to form

1) The Daily Telegraph article you cite has a headline of " "Nine set to pay $1M to GFC-predicting finance expert Peter Schiff after defamation settlement"

2) McKenzie himself wasn't liable for a cent. As both the Daily Telegraph and comcourts reference say.

No point adding references if ignore what they say. They don't allow you a free for all to write whatever you want and if you continue to do so, there will be consequences. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

You kept the daily telegraph article on page some I’m satisfied anyway with the current state of page Markj573 (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic. So lets leave it as is. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Peter Schiff. Thank you. --Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Reverting at Peter Schiff

Hello Mark. Please review our page at WP:BRD. I challenged your edit as WP:UNDUE detail about the Peter Schiff lawsuit. The next step should be for you to advocate for reinstatement at the article talk page, if you feel strongly about this content. Please undo your reinstatement and proceed with whatever discussion you choose. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Mark, you may have noticed that several editors have challenged your edits and your reinstatement of them after such challenged. That's why we use talk pages - to resolve these disagreements. Please take heed. SPECIFICO talk 18:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)