User talk:Marble Argument

May 2023

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that in this edit to Josh Klinghoffer, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 20:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Josh Klinghoffer. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Klinghoffer

Please do not remove reliably-sourced information, even at the request of the subject (see WP:OWN). ... discospinster _talk 20:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? I AM the subject. I can't edit something out? Marble Argument (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is indeed about you, you are still subject to the same rules and policies about editing it. Moreover, WP:AUTOBIO states that "Editing a biography about yourself is acceptable only if you are removing unambiguous vandalism or clear-cut and serious violations of our biography of living persons policy." The content is not vandalism, and not a violation of the living persons policy since it comes with a reliable source. If it is inaccurate you may correct it, but that would also have to be accompanied by a reliable source. ... discospinster _talk 20:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source??? Where is the incorrect information I removed's reliable source? It claimed I was a certain religion. I am half that and half another. According to the traditions of the one I removed from the article, I am not a part of that religion because my mother isn't a part of it. I personally despise absolutely everything to do with religion and think it should be abolished from earth. I know I can't do that, so I'll settle for the next best thing and abolish it from my Wikipedia page. Please leave it alone. Thank you kindly. Marble Argument (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Marble Argument,

I understand that that can be strange, if you are the person behind the page. Sadly, Wikipedia can't take claims like that at face value ; or anyone can pretend being anyone alive. What I advise you, if you want to see this info removed, is to not touch it anymore (you are already flagged by multiple alerts in May) but to do an interview or an official communication of any sort that adress this claim, and then, using this source, remove the old and alleged false assertion, for example saying "His father is Jewish, but not his mother" and therefore putting the source of your own statement, that would be more fiable than this one to back that up.

Normally, then, it wouldn't be a problem, since the source used to assert that isn't rock solid.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that there are discussions on different Wikipedia projects (including the French, which I know better than this one), that adress the fact that any moment that someone has some ancestry being Jewish, some people seem that to be amusing to link them automatically to Judaism. We know it's an issue, and Wikipedists are taking action as they can, but when there are sources, it's complicated to fight that, except by having a better source. AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found a source about the mother being named "Kathleen" and being Irish/Catholic. I added it and nuanced the link to Judaism. Seemed to fit at least some kind of value, since the link made by Jewish newspaper made the connexion with someone called "Klinghoffer" too, thus from the father's lineage. However, the source about the mother needs to be reinforced, I think + if you have anything about the alleged atheism, don't hesitate to add that too.

Cordially, AgisdeSparte (talk) 00:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, this is beyond frustrating, but I am genuinely curious, how does someone decide to include that information and I have no ability to expunge, especially when it's to do with something personal like religion. Does everything person in Wikipedia have their parents religious affiliations listen? No. I despise and abhor all religions and their practices. I decided to remove any mention, again, if the religions my parents were born into yesterday in a moment of boredom, and I now am committed to having them removed because random people do not get to decide what to write over the wishes of a kind request of omission…for their own reasons and fulfilling their own agendas.

Is there not a case manager this issue can be brought to? Marble Argument (talk) 16:31, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering we do not know who you are, and your story has changed from edit summary to talk page (first few edit summaries say you are deleting on behalf of the subject, now on talk page you claim to be the subject). I believe I personally will continue to trust the verifiable reliable sources for now. With these being your only edits so far, for all we know, you could be an antisemitic troll simply wanting to remove any mention of Judaism... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume anti-Semitic and not anti-Catholic. I am actually just straight up anti-religion. All of them.

I don't know how any one this nonsense works. Of course, originally I claimed to be doing on behalf of the subject. I thought that'd be enough. How shall I prove it to you? That I am me? Would you like to FaceTime right now? The funny thing is, I am for the correction of all communication on the internet. If I was an anti-Semitic troll, which doesn't, in my opinion, make more sense than someone saying what I said which was, hey, I don't want to be tied to ANY religion. I seems to me that the person who felt it necessary to add my familial connection to Judaism is the opposite of anti-semitic. They are operation with a religious agenda. That's okay? Sure, if it goes unchallenged. Anyway, I'm me and can prove that to you any way you'd like. I'd honestly love to have a conversation with you and become more familiar with your motives and what you do. If you're up for it. Let me know. Marble Argument (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit my last comment and add a question mark???!!?!?! Marble Argument (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IS all of this communication public? I have no idea. Marble Argument (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that is said here, alongside everything that is made on the pages or on their talk pages can be freely accessed by Internet, yup AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to edit your previous comment, you can do so with the "modify code". For help, I suggest that you speak to the help desk for beginners, that could help you adress the issues you have, but I'm gonna be honest, as long as there is no source, you can't do anything, really... :/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, who are you now? Marble Argument (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the source, I guess one of the ideas that you could do is "maybe" to send an official mail to an adress that a Wikipedist have stating something like : "My father is Jewish but my mother isn't, and I always found myself to be Atheist", and then upload a screenshot of this mail on Wikimedia Commons as a picture that could serve as a reference (of an official statement of some sort) to put these points in the article.

But I want to stress that this could be refused by some Wikipedists, and I have virtually no idea how the English Wikipedia works for living people and these kind of claims and issues, since I usually only deal with historical figures (and vandalism - and my program flagged you, since it detects everytime that someone takes out references especially about Judaism, as you can imagine, to avoid antisemitism as we can). However, this solution could be accepted, I guess. AgisdeSparte (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:Identity verification? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-semitism is abhorrent, disgusting and has no place in the world. I'm also of the mind that all religion are those things as well and have no place in the modern world, but that's for anther time. Marble Argument (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Josh Klinghoffer. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding an edit war

Hi Marble Argument! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Josh Klinghoffer 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:Josh Klinghoffer, 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.

Please note: Removing factually incorrect content is fine. Adding new content against others' concerns is disruptive. If you are concerned about incorrect statements, you can remove them without replacing them by your own text. Any text addition beyond such a removal is incompatible with various policies (edit warring, burden of verifiability, onus to seek a consensus, additional requirements when writing about living people) and will lead to a block from editing to prevent it from continuing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]