User talk:MarkBernstein

A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive. A project which promotes and fosters racism and anti-Semitism is a menace to society.

---

• /Archive1 /Archive2 /Archive3 /Archive4 /Archive5 /Archive6

---

A few points:

• technically, you shouldn't even be mentioning gamergate. You're still topic banned.
• you say that you don't want to relitigate gamergate, but half your unblock request seems to be going on about it.
• your block log is full of gamergate-related blocks. I don't really think mentioning gamergate is a wise decision.
• copy editing old biographies sounds pretty harmless.

If you can stop talking about gamergate, I think you'd have a reasonable chance of being unblocked. I suggest you just erase all mention of gamergate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to do so. It is, I understand, customary for returning editors in this circumstance to confess their sins and beg forgiveness. I cannot do that. If I do not allude to the situation that caused this mess, I do not comply with the requirements of an unblock request. This is reminiscent of Catch-22: I must not mention that which I am required to address.MarkBernstein (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It makes me very hesitant to unblock you based on your desire to participate in a Contentious Topic such as psudoscience -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m happy to avoid pseudoscience. I do have a doctorate in chemistry, so I might be able to make myself useful. But it's not a big deal. In fact, I have no intention of working in any contentious area. To be absolutely explicit, I understand the reason for the block, and I have no desire, now or ever again, to engage in on-wiki arguments on any topic. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

My inclination is to allow another chance at editing given the time that has elapsed since the last block, with the GamerGate and related topic-bans surviving.

I do not fault MarkBernstein for having mentioned GamerGate in his unblock request, for the reasons he offers, though I agree that with NinjaRobotPirate that he should not mention that subject here again. I also agree with Guerillero that if unblocked, MarkBernstein should not rush headlong into contentious aspects of pseudoscience; but it is fair to recognize thta work on 18th and 19th-century scientists and philosophers is likely to involve some aspects of what we would now consider pseudoscience today—much of which should not be controversial today.

Given the history here, I will leave this open for others to comment, and also wonder if this request might best be mentioned on a noticeboard. Also @Salvio guiliano, Thryduulf, Lord Roem, Sandstein, and EdJohnston: as the admins who were active in the last AE discussion; and please feel free to add anyone I may have missed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Ten blocks on the block log. Why are we even having this discussion? Carrite (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Because it has been, as the title notes, 6 years. Indefinite does not mean infinite because people can change and so it is reasonable that, after a significant length of time, that appeals are considered on their merits and not dismissed out of hand. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
    • 4,219 edits...... 10 blocks. What exactly has this individual contributed to Wikipedia that makes you so all-fired sure that an 11th chance is necessary? Persistence? What exactly is this individual proposing to contribute to Wikipedia??? Textbook NOTHERE is all that I see. Carrite (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

      What exactly is this individual proposing to contribute to Wikipedia? the appeal answers this question, have you read it? What exactly has this individual contributed to Wikipedia that makes you so all-fired sure that an 11th chance is necessary? Everybody deserves a chance to be a productive editor. It's been many years since they were last given a chance, and if they can become a productive editor now then the project gains. If they can't we've not lost much, especially with a one-strike-and-you're-out topic ban. If we don't give editors a chance in this sort of situation then we are encouraging them to simply not ask and try their hand at socking - something which costs the project a hell of a lot more. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• My initial thinking is that any return will have to come with strict restrictions, that if contravened will result in the reinstatement of the indefinite ban. What conditions? Well, the existing topic ban ("prohibited from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.") remaining in force in some form is non-negotiable at minimum. I'm also wondering whether something like restricting editing to only (a) articles directly about scientists active in the 18th or 19th centuries, (b) articles directly about the research conducted by scientists active in the 18th or 19th centuries and (c) discussions directly about such articles. The restriction should allow contributing to the AfD of an article about such a scientist and an RfD of a redirect to such an article, but not allow contributing to discussions about such scientists or their work on other articles (e.g. the influence of a 19th century scientist in the article on a 20th century one). Such a restriction would be in addition to the existing topic ban so you could not edit the article about, for example, a 19th century scientist who is the subject of or associated with a gender-related dispute. I would allow appeal of the new topic ban in 3 months, but the existing restriction not for a year. Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, though there's a bunch of border cases. I think people like Kurt Gödel and John von Neumann, though edging into the 20th century, are not very contentious; both are discussed in the chapter on which I’m working. They met in a sort of seminar that was run by Moritz Schlick; Schlick was a Professor of Philosophy at Vienna but his chair was closely associated with Physics. Was he a scientist? Might a 1RR reassure you? I really have no intention to dispute anything at all. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  I had thought about the century border problem, I didn't articulate it as my criteria was very complicated (and thus lengthy) and wanted to get feedback on the general principal first. However I hadn't considered the definition of who is a scientist, which seems silly in retrospect, but I never expected that wording to be adopted verbatim. Having thought about it a bit more, I think the simplest way of putting boundaries on the area is to say it includes anyone categorised in Category:18th-century scientists, category:19th-century scientists or their subcategories. If you wish to create new articles then they must be uncontroversial to categorise them in one or more (subcategories) of those two categories. There likely will still be edge cases, I recommend staying away from them, but a simple request for clarification along the lines of "is Person A a 19th century scientist for the purpose of my restriction?" would not be a violation of the restriction. The issue is trusting that you will stay away from the topics that got you into trouble in the first place, given your history of failing to. If you can stick to a rigidly defined set like this for three months without issues that will build enough trust for me to support loosening the reins (obviously I cannot promise everyone will agree). I'm not going to object to a 1RR, but I don't consider one to be necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  That’s fine. MarkBernstein (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  This request needs more attention before anyone is going be comfortable accepting or declining it. If none is forthcoming then I'll place a neutrally-worded message at WP:AN in a day or so (when I'll next have time). Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

  Does it, really? What’s the downside? I’m really easy to block, should I cause trouble. I won’t. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: I support your proposal. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:50, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

  I just realised it's been a lot more than a day or so. If there is no more commentary by this evening (UK time) I'll unblock with the discussed conditions.

  @Newyorkbrad, @Carrite, @Guerillero, @NinjaRobotPirate Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Mark, in case you weren't aware, discretionary sanctions were replaced by Wikipedia:Contentious topics in 2022. If you haven't already, I recommend familiarising yourself with the new system (handy comparison of DS and CTOP). Thryduulf (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

For example, taking a quick look at Claude Shannon for a chapter on the intellectual foundations of data representation, I come across the sentence, “At the University of Michigan, Shannon dual degreed, graduating with a Bachelor of Science in both electrical engineering and mathematics in 1936.” Roughly speaking, "degree" is not a verb. The OED does list a verb for in use in the 19th century, but it means "to confer a degree upon". "Shannon received Bachelor degrees in both electrical engineering and mathematics in 1936 from the University of Michigan” avoids the problem. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You are unblocked subject to the following two topic bans:

1. You are prohibited from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
2. You may edit only the following:
   • Biographies in Category:18th-century scientists, category:19th-century scientists or their subcategories.
   • Articles directly about research carried out by scientists with a biography categories as above.
   • New articles that, once created, will uncontroversially meet the above criteria. You may draft such articles in your userspace or in draft space.
   • Talk pages of, redirects to, and discussions (in any namespace) directly related to the above. This explicitly includes XfDs.
   • Your user and user talk page.
   • Any other page for the purpose of (a) clarifying or appealing these topic bans, or (b) a discussion about your actions.

• In the case of conflict between the first and second topic bans, the first shall be controlling (i.e. you may not edit about a 19th-century scientist who is associated with a gender-related dispute).
• Violations of the first topic ban will result in an indefinite block. This topic ban may be appealed no sooner than 3 January 2026, and every 12 months thereafter.
• Violations of the second topic ban will result in blocks, with length at the discretion of the enforcing administrator. This topic ban may be appealed no sooner than 3 April 2025, and every 6 months thereafter.

Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Should questions arise, would you prefer I ping you here? Ask on your talk page? Email? Or ask someone else? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Pinging me here is probably the best, as that's going to be easiest for other people to find if they have queries. Feel free to ask others too though, especially if I don't answer promptly. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Three months have passed. I’ve tried to help a little where I could. A good deal of my work in this time, unfortunately, falls outside the restrictions: Kurt Gödel, Rudi Carnap, Claude Shannon are all too recent. Do you think you could see your way to dropping these restrictions? MarkBernstein (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ask me again next week, I'm not going to have time to look at anything Wikipedia related in any detail before the weekend and no doubt there will be much to catch up on over the weekend. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Will do! Noting, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Douglas_Engelbart&curid=8081&diff=1284943471&oldid=1281977894, which changes Engelbart’s undergraduate degree from "Oregon State University" to "Oregon University". Engelbart’s CV at the Engelbart Institute says "Oregon State", and is independent of Wikipedia. Oregon State’s Hall of Fame has a page for Engelbart. I expect I can confirm it in Bardini, T. 2000 Bootstrapping : Douglas Engelbart, coevolution, and the origins of personal computing. Stanford University Press if necessary. MarkBernstein (talk)

@Thryduulf Asking again; I hope your weekend went well. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

A very shallow look shows no immediate red flags (nobody has been shouting at you here for example), which is a good sign. I'm not awake enough to look in much more detail right now but I should get chance to do so tomorrow. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Having now spent some time looking at your contributions, I'm not seeing anything obviously problematic but what I'm mostly seeing is not a lot of anything. I appreciate it is a restrictive set, but I was hoping for a lot more to evaluate than 30 mostly small edits. I'm not going to unilaterally remove your topic ban now, but I'm also not counting this as a concluded appeal for the purposes of that part of the restriction so if you would like to seek opinions from other editors you can do so. Thryduulf (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but this is really a tiny area in which to work. It’s not my core expertise. I’ve been exquisitely careful of the boundaries, knowing you would police them with care.

Could you perhaps see your way to relaxing the restriction to the 18th and 19th centuries, and including computer science and software development? MarkBernstein (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Newyorkbrad, Carrite, Guerillero, NinjaRobotPirate, and Voorts: (as those who commented back in January) for their thoughts Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I would be agreeable to this modification as requested. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Thryduulf and @Newyorkbrad:. I’m on the road this week, giving a paper on 1930s Vienna and the History of the Web, so I may be available irregularly. I think, perhaps, you might consider giving me a broad parole. Less restriction makes it more likely that I can in some small way do useful things. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to stand in the way of NYB or another admin, but I remain unconvinced that 30 mostly-small edits is enough on which to judge. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging @Newyorkbrad:. Why not relax, or drop, all these restrictions? I have not caused trouble, and shall not. If I were to do so, I would be easy to block, though in practice a quiet hint would be sufficient. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Noting as an example, the following passage from Freya Stark which I stumbled across:

At the age of 30, hoping to escape her life as a flower farmer in northern Italy, Stark chose to study languages at university. She chose to study Arabic and later, Persian. She studied at Bedford College, London and the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS).

It is obvious that this could be better worded. Someone ought to fix it. But Freya is 20th century and not a scientist, so not I. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Another example from E._M._Forster:

Though conscious of his repressed desires, it was while stationed in Egypt, that Forster became friendly with the Greek poet C.P. Cavafy, described in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Forster as "an active homosexual"

This too, surely, could be better worded. The comma after "Egypt" is flatly wrong. Who, grammatically, is conscious of desires? Is there a subject or direct object for which this could be an antecedent? Someone should straighten this out. (Is the existence of homosexuality covered in “gender, broadly construed”? Surely not, but...). MarkBernstein (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

✓ Another passage that does Wikipedia no credit is this rather unpleasant bit from al-Fihrist, a 10th-century compilation of knowledge.

In the chapter on anonymous works of assorted content there is a section on "Persian, Indian, Byzantine, and Arab books on sexual intercourse in the form of titillating stories", but the Persian works are not separated from the others; the list includes a "Book of Bahrām-doḵt on intercourse." This is followed by books of Persians, Indians, etc. on fortune-telling, books of "all nations" on horsemanship and the arts of war, then on horse doctoring and on falconry, some of them specifically attributed to the Persians. Then we have books of wisdom and admonition by the Persians and others, including many examples of Persian andarz literature, e.g. various books attributed to Persian emperors Khosrau I, Ardashir I, etc.

This is surely undue, and the emphasis on Persia seems wrong. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ And here's a passage in Vienna Genesis paragraph 2:

It is written in uncials with silver ink on calfskin vellum (on page 36 of "The Vienna Genesis. Material analysis and conservation of a late antique illuminated manuscript on purple parchment" states "The parchment of Late Antique manuscripts, which date from the 4th–7th century, is made from sheepskin" despite the fact it is called vellum. Its being called vellum is misleading as it would have been lambskin not calfskin, to which vellum specifically applies) dyed a rich purple, placing it very firmly in the category of luxury manuscripts. This shade of purple dye was also used to dye imperial cloth.

I think the editor wants to cite page 36 of an article or monograph named The Vienna Genesis. Material analysis and conservation..., but it's taken me five minutes to parse. This distinction between types of parchment is not, perhaps, the most significant things to know about this codex. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ OK: another oddball. NY Times today mentioned Paul Reubens, who played Pee-Wee Herman. In his bio, we find:

During this ongoing legal issue, Reubens spent two years in Sarasota, Florida, caring for his terminally ill father, who died in February 2004 of cancer.

Idiomatically, his father died of cancer in February 2004. MarkBernstein (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In 2 Baruch, we have:

Chapters 78–87 (known also as Letter of Baruch to the Nine and One-half Tribes): the main themes of this letter are the hope for a future reward after the present sufferance...

"Sufferance" usually means "tolerance” or “indifference”. As a synonym for “suffering” it is archaic, and the more common term will suffice here.

The page on Norma_Barzman ought to mention her appearance in The Bit Player, a documentary biography of Claude Shannon, her first husband. Shannon’s biography A Mind At Play might also be cited. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Ralph Hartley, we have:

Following the war he returned to Western Electric. He later worked at Bell Laboratories. He performed research on repeaters and voice and carrier transmission and formulated the law "that the total amount of information that can be transmitted is proportional to frequency range transmitted and the time of the transmission." His 1928 paper is considered "the single most important prerequisite" for Shannon's theory of information.[2] After about 10 years of illness he returned to Bell Labs in 1939 as a consultant.

In spite of his illness ...

The final sentence fits better in the following paragraph. It would also be clearer to explain that Western Electric’s research organization became Bell Labs. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Claude Shannon’s list of awards, the 1939 Noble prize is listed twice. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Wrangler (University of Cambridge):

The present Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, a wrangler, went on to become one of the world's leading scientists, also holding the illustrious posts of...

"Illustrious" is too much. "Also" is not needed. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Arthur Hope the baronet:

to pay off large debts incurred by Hope "speculating on the racecourse" before his appointment. Hope eventually claimed this assumption was accurate.[14]

“Claimed” is wrong; perhaps a previous editor thought people were making conjectures, but the source uses “speculate” as a genteel euphemism for gambling. Chips Channon 4 Jan 1940 gives another example of Hope’s borrowing. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Manetho:

The remaining fragments of the Aegyptiaca continue to be a singular resource for delineating Egyptian chronology, more than two millennia since its composition.

It is not necessary to remind the reader that two millennia have passed, since we just read that Manetho lived 290-260BCE. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

In Esarhaddon, the new-Assyrian king, there is a redlink to Esarhaddon’s Succession Treaty. IIRC this should be Esarhaddon Succession Treaty. But there ought to be a page. There are plenty of lead references in Lauinger, D. (2021). Observing Neo-Assyrian Scribes At Work. In Ast, Rodney, Choat, Malcolm, Cromwell, Jennifer, Lougovaya, Julia, & Yuen-Collingridge, Rachel (Eds.), Observing the scribe at work : scribal practice in the ancient world. Peeters. (JSTOR). So this should be made, but Esarhaddon not being a scientist not by me. 12:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Temple of Artemis, we have:

...the temple may have been repaired and open to us again, or it may have lain derelict until its official closure during the persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire.

Who is "us"? Perhaps "open for use" was intended? Also, "official" suggests an earlier "unofficial" closure, and also contradicts the story told later about John Chrysostom. Better to omit. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

✓ In Galen’s De indolentia or Peri Alypias, we have:

Galen's work was likely written in the early months of 193 AD, after the death of the emperor Commodus, as Peri Alypias includes critical remarks around his reign.[9]

"Around" is probably not the intended preposition. Perhaps "of" is meant. Also, it is unclear why we insist on *early* 193. Commodus died 31 Dec 192, but he was the subject of critical remarks for a very long time. This *is* the opinion of the editor cited in the footnote after the sentence, but it is not argued at any length and it seems unnecessary to emphasize the point. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

✓ Jane Ellen Harrison is templated for lacking inline citations, though it appears to have plenty of them.

✓ Arthur Schnitzler:

The furor after this play was couched in the strongest antisemitic terms.

"After" is likely the wrong preposition.

Despite his seriousness of purpose, Schnitzler frequently approaches the bedroom farce in his plays (and had an affair with Adele Sandrock, one of his actresses).

This is a non-sequitur, and the discussion of the affair is out of place. Many serious people have affairs.

Professor Bernhardi, a play about a Jewish doctor who turns away a Catholic priest in order to spare a patient the realization that she is on the point of death, is his only major dramatic work without a sexual theme.

Something is amiss here: "she" has no plausible antecedent. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

✓ Paul Ehrenfest:

Later, he always emphasized his Jewish ancestry.

This is clumsy. It needs a citation in any case, but it's also poor writing. Did he *always* emphasize his ancestry? Surely not. It would be better to give some specific occasions in which this came up. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

✓ Friedrich Waismann

Schlick first met Ludwig Wittgenstein in 1927 and did so several times before the latter would agree to be introduced to some of his colleagues.

This is not ideal as the first sentence in a new section. The sentence is muddled and the antecedent of the final "his" needs to be puzzled out. The sentence is copied from the Wikipedia bio of Wittgenstein. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:59, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Phillip Frank

And instead became a lecturer on physics and mathematics at Harvard from that year until his retirement in 1954.[1]

This is likely an editorial scar, after someone tried to fix a run-on sentence. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

✓ Sally Schneider

Just tagged for notability. I’m familiar with her food writing, and I’m confident I can expand this discussion to demonstrate notability. Curiously, the article fails to mention her two major cookbooks, A New Way To Cook (2001) and The Improvisational Cook (2006). The Guardian lists the former among the top food books of the decade.

The sentence

"For several years, she ran her own catering business until she segued, into food styling and magazine writing."

has a misplaced comma, and "segued" is not really the right word.

✓ History_of_hypertext

In '89 van Dam's helped Lou Reynolds and van Dam's former students Steven DeRose and Jeff Vogel spun off Electronic Book Technologies, whose SGML-based hypertext system DynaText was widely used for large online publishing and e-book projects, such as online documentation for Sun, SGI, HP, Novell, and DEC, as well as aerospace, transport, publishing, and other applications. Brown's Center For Digital Scholarship [1] (née Scholarly Technology Group) was heavily involved in related standards efforts such as the Text Encoding Initiative, Open eBook and XML, as well as enabling a wide variety of humanities hypertext projects.

Lots of awkwardness here. A missing comma after ’89, which should be 1989. "Spun" should be "spin". The laundry list of EBT clients is not helpful. TEI is not really close to Dynabook and Brown’s STG ought to stand on its own.

All major histories of what we now call hypertext start in 1945,

Well, our article starts with Talmud. I’m not sure what a "major" history would be. It is certainly possible to trace hypertext to Otlet and Wells; that’s what the article has just been talking about. Bush 1945 was an influential speculative fiction article.

Meanwhile, Nelson, who had been working on and advocating his Xanadu system for over two decades, along with the commercial success of HyperCard, stirred Autodesk to invest in his revolutionary ideas.

A run-on sentence. Missing "for" is required after "advocating". The "commercial success" of HyperCard would be hard to establish, as it was bundled with Macintosh computers; I doubt that it influenced Autodesk.

van Dam's research groups at Brown University continued working as well.

The lowercase "v" at the start of the sentence is wrong; van Dam is Dutch, not German.

There’s a lot of undue emphasis and a good deal of repetition. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

[]

In his book, Domain-specific languages, Fowler discusses Domain-specific languages, DSL.

The acronym is not worthwhile here. This and the following sentence are wordy. Better: “In Domain-Specific Languages, Fowler discusses composable programming languages characterized by tight focus on a limited domain.”

Ways of implementing internal DSLs is discussed, with attention paid to nested function calls,[10]: 357  sequences of function calls,[10]: 351  or method chaining[10]: 373  amongst other methods.[citation needed]

Ways are discussed. No citation was needed: the pertinent citation it the book that is being summarized. But with three citations in the sentence, no additional citation is needed.

Kinzie_Street_railroad_bridge

Merchandise Mart was built on air rights of the Chicago and North Western

Throughout, the article calls this build "Merchandise Mart”. Customary Chicago usage is "The Merchandise Mart."

I understand that @Thryduulf would like a broader range of edits. The narrow restriction to 18th and 19th century scientists makes this a challenging, and my natural reluctance to come anywhere close to an edge makes it even harder. I’m a computer scientist; grammatical errors in the pages of 18th and 19th century scientists are simply an example I mentioned in passing.

I honestly think dropping all the restrictions would be perfectly safe. But if you can’t see you way that far, how about adding my field — electronic literature, or (better) computing? In the coming months, I expect to be writing (elsewhere) about Amiability and the Web: Lessons from Red Vienna and the Origin of Computing and about the intellectual history of error detection and correction with an emphasis on antiquity, and perhaps also on data visualization. @Newyorkbrad:@Beeblebrox: MarkBernstein (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm here because I fell down a rabbit hole. I'm not an admin and can't help you in any way here. I doubt there's any appetite to remove your narrowly-tailored topic bans with this little activity from you. However, I appreciate how onerous the second topic ban is, especially for someone who doesn't have any substantial content to contribute and just wants make articles he stumbles across a little prettier.

I think the approach most likely to succeed here is the one you've proposed: broadening the breadth of articles you are allowed to edit to include more areas that intersect with your reading activity. In that spirit, I would support your proposal here. I would also—in principle—support adding a clause to your second topic ban that says something along the following lines: except to make uncontroversial edits that do not change the meaning of the edited text. However, that introduces many fuzzy edges to what you would be allowed to do, and administrators do not like topic bans with fuzzy edges because they are difficult to enforce, so I doubt that suggestion finds traction.

Again, I want to reiterate that I'm not an administrator. I have no authority to modify topic bans and have no meaningful support to give here. But for whatever it's worth, I do believe you mean well, and I appreciate that you are trying to work with us on this. I hope we can find a solution that gives you more opportunities to contribute while remaining within the boundaries with which the community feels comfortable. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

So, six more months have passed. I’ve made corrections I happened to notice to 18th and 19th century scientists, and have kept a list (Notes On More Edits I’d Like To Make, above) of others I’ve noticed. I really do think that the restrictions might be dispensed with. Pinging @Thryduulf and @Newyorkbrad: MarkBernstein (talk) 19:17, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I would be agreeable to a modification of the topic-ban to allow the types of edits you've referenced above. However, I'm not sure whether I can grant that permission unilaterally or whether a broader discussion is required. @Thryduulf: do you have any thoughts on this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

A previous diff from @Thryduulf: might be pertinent: Special:Diff/1287711262&oldid=1287700618 MarkBernstein (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

More months have passed. I’ve made corrections I happened to notice to 18th and 19th century scientists, and have kept a list (Notes On More Edits I’d Like To Make, above) of others I’ve noticed. I really do think that the restrictions might be dispensed with. Pinging @Thryduulf and @Newyorkbrad, again. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Mark, those pings won't have worked - they need the brackets around them as you've done earlier. No views on the actual request, just didn't want it to sit here unresponded to because of a vagary of wiki markup. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

So: Thryduulf, Newyorkbrad. —Fortuna, imperatrix 20:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

@Euryalus Sorry. I’m a dolt. MarkBernstein (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

At this time I am open to relaxing the restrictions on your editing, although procedurally I'm not sure whether this is something I can do by myself or whether a broader admin consensus would be required. However, for clarity, are you asking for all restrictions to be lifted, or would you be okay with the GamerGate/gender topic-ban remaining at this time? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

It would be generous (and just) to relax all the restrictions. I can live with the Gamergate/gender topic ban, if necessary. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

How might we advance this? MarkBernstein (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Talk Page Lurkers: how might we best proceed? I’m permitted to edit only in one obscure corner — 18th and 19th century scientists, narrowly construed. Sure, history of science is interesting, but it’s not my field. No, I’ve not been very active; how could I be?

I really don’t think AN/I or ARCA would be a ton of fun. As I understand things, those aren’t the only alternatives. Euryalus Newyorkbrad Fortuna_imperatrix_mundi MarkBernstein (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Dear Talk Page Lurkers: how might we best proceed? @Euryalus: @Newyorkbrad: @Fortuna imperatrix mundi: @Thryduulf: @Aquillion: MarkBernstein (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

At this late date, I am prepared to lift all the restrictions, with the exception of the GamerGate topic area, unless another admin expresses a different view in the next 48 hours. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Based on the history of discussions above, and in view of the years that have now elapsed since prior controversies, I am lifting the restrictions on MarkBernstein's editing, with the sole exception of a continued topic-ban concerning GamerGate and gender-related controversies. I think it is best to leave that restriction in place for the present, especially given that MarkBernstein wishes to focus on other matters in any event, but this is without prejudice to a further appeal after another few months.

Of course, MarkBernstein should be mindful of all policies and guidelines, and any contentious-topic rules, applicable to his edits. In the hopefully unlikely event that there are significant problems with MarkBernstein's editing, any or all of the prior restrictions may be reimposed through the appropriate process; but I hope and expect this will not be necessary.

My thanks to everyone who commented in earlier discussions on this page. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

• bio for Nancy Kaplan MarkBernstein (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

TarnishedPath^talk 00:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, @TarnishedPath! And thanks! I don't believe we met during The Events I Will Not Mention. I’m walking a tightrope here, because I do not have any desire to get involved in contentious topics, but I do feel a certain obligation not to avert my eyes from atrocities as did the Good Germans. So, doing my best. Advice always welcome. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi MarkBernstein, thanks for your feedback and thank you for being so polite/reasonable about your concerns with my statement.

See this editor's comment to see some of the instances and sources for the "pro-Israel external pressure/influence" on Wikipedia; especially the instances of the US government writing letters to Wikimedia Foundation making allegations (without rational basis) of anti-Israel misinformation and threatening the foundation's non-profit status. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

There are no "instances of the US government writing letters to the Wikimedia Foundation." Some individual Congressmen may have done so. That is their right; the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Nor is asserting that Levivich promoted anti-Israel sentiments be "without rational basis"; that was, I believe, an ArbCom finding of fact. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

The link I cited included a letter sent to the Wikimedia foundation by the House Oversight Committee. I'll strike some of what I said for being inaccurate. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mark Levin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2026 (UTC)