User talk:Marianna251/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome!

Have some cookies!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Marianna251! My name is Jonathunder. I just wanted to say howdy and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or press the "Request Help" button at the bottom of this message. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some pages that will help you edit Wikipedia:   How to edit a page   Sandbox, a place where you can experiment   Tutorial   What this site is based on   Where to ask questions   Wikipedia's style manual

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or press the "Request Help" button below. Again, welcome!

CVU

Hello, Marianna251/Archive 1! I have seen your hard work reverting vandalism, and I would like to thank you. But do you want to go to the next level? Would you like to know how reverts, warnings, reports, blocks, and bans all come together to keep this Encyclopedia free from disruption? Then consider enrolling today! Leave a message on my talk page or visit the Academy's information page. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Because you thanked me

Marianna251, you thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...  YOU'RE WELCOME! It's a pleasure, and I hope you have a lot of fun while you edit this inspiring encyclopedia phenomenon! Horseless Headman (talk)

17:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Aw, thank you! :) Marianna251TALK 17:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you! Winterysteppe (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

My first barnstar! Thank you! :D Marianna251TALK 08:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

SickKids Hospital

Relax, I wasn't vandalising. It's not necessary to have headers for two hospitals that were only historically known by that name. 174.118.208.62 (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I think I can see what you meant to do now. Unfortunately, the combination of edits you made to The Hospital for Sick Children – completely removing information/maintenance templates, unexplained formatting changes, removing spaces between words – certainly looked like vandalism to me. In future, if you think the information template(s) have been improperly set up, I'd recommend editing the way they're set up instead of removing them entirely. The preview button is also useful for checking that your edits don't accidentally change more than you intended. Marianna251TALK 01:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

---

Hey! I got your message about my recent edit and tried to add citations to it in the next revision but it looks like I goofed that one up to. Any tips? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.79.27.13 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wikipedia content should be based on what reliable sources report. I rather don't think The Free Thought Project meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability; besides, it did not confirm what you cited it for anyway. Huon (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I wanted to add a few bits and pieces to what Huon's said, since I was the one who reverted your edits.

I really appreciated the work you put in adding references and cleaning up the text. The reason I reverted your edit on The Onion again, however, is because it was lacking in reliable sources (see WP:RELIABLE) and didn't come across as neutral to me (see WP:NPOV). Most of the sources were from the Onion itself, which isn't a problem in itself but can be very difficult to use because we Wikipedians should never interpret the sources ourselves. The non-Onion source seems to be an opinion piece, as are pretty much all the articles on the Free Thought Project, which makes them similarly difficult to work with because they should only be used when you're saying what the author of the piece thinks, e.g. "Joe Bloggs said 'X'" rather than "X (ref: Joe Bloggs)". (see WP:NEWSORG/WP:BIASED).

Overall, I'd see if you can find some sources from mainstream news outlets (e.g. BBC, Reuters, New York Times, etc.) and try to reword the edit based on those sources. The other controversies on the Onion page are good examples of neutral tone - they're factual and straightforward, just summarising the sources. If you can't find any reliable sources at the moment, then I think you have to put this edit on the back burner until it filters through to the established news media.

Quick final note - please could you sign your posts using ~~~~? That makes it easier to know who's left a message. :) I hope this helps! Marianna251TALK 23:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

FWIW as someone who watches that page and adds cited material when it comes along, the problem with the whole theory put forth by The Intercept is it’s political “mind-reading” that can be construed as “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (“after this, therefore because of this”). Meaning, that the idea that the purchase will now lead to skewing of editorial coverage is not a new idea and—honestly—it makes me now look at the content a different way. But all of this can’t be proven from an encyclopedic point of view. So as presented it doesn’t stand a neutrality test here. That said, an encyclopedic presentation might be to state something like, “With this purchase by Univision—who counts known political influencer Haim Saban as one of it’s investors—questions have arisen as to how this would affect the publication’s neutrality in covering candidates in the 2016 election.” Past that everything else is really speculation since The Onion routinely skewers and satirizes anyone and everyone equally. That said you know what might be helpful? Adding a comment on the talk page about this issue so others are aware of it and if something that is more tangible comes up discussion can exist on how to handle that. --SpyMagician (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Fairbanks

Hello, I think you have given me a vandalism template by mistake. I have been reverting vandalism on articles, and I noticed User:Thabiso Cavin Mabena had made a vandalism edit (Special:Diff/706014411) and then removed it (Special:Diff/706014544) but in the process shifted the reference so it was a line below where it was supposed to be. I thought the best thing to do was to revert both edits to get it back to the state it was in Special:Permalink/702511933 before User: Thabiso Cavin Mabena made either of his edits. Thus, I reversed both of his edits (Special:Diff/706017466 and Special:Diff/706017483) to get it back to the original version. I think amidst all the edits, you mistook my edits for readding vandalism, which they were not; they were removing Thabiso's. However, the edit you reverted was the one that moved the reference back to the right place (Special:Diff/706017634), so now it's back floating in midair between the lead and the menu box. I'm sorry for the confusion; I'm going to put the reference back in the right place now.TallCorgi (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@TallCorgi: Yikes, you're completely right! I'm so sorry - I should have been more careful. I'll remove the template from your talk page. Thank you for letting me know! Marianna251TALK 23:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@TallCorgi: Sorry to ping you twice, but I think I've worked out what happened. I intended to revert the "kaka" vandalism edit, but of course it had already been amended. When I went back to view history, I assumed the editor below me was the vandal, which is why I left the message on your talk page by mistake. Thank you for being so understanding. Marianna251TALK 00:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! That makes sense! Thank you for the Barnstar! :) TallCorgi (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Cleanup Barnstar Hires.png The Cleanup Barnstar Thanks :) XUSB (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

I appreciate your work! Always great to have another member on the patrolling team. GABHello! 17:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Perfect, I was just getting hungry! Marianna251TALK 17:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Christianity and Stockholm syndrome

Hello, Thank you for putting in the hard work of a moderator and keeping these pages looking good; it's truly appreciated by many of us. In regards to your recent contributions to Stockholm syndrome I fear we might not see eye to eye on the subject and due to your mention of "vandalism" it wouldn't surprise me if you might hold to previously held beliefs you may or may not have even after I make a sound argument. Regardless of opinion, I think truth shall prevail in the name of scientific advancement and public knowledge and religious oppression should not be an issue. I do hope you hold the same view. At the same time, I'm glad you reverted this as I think a touch of empathy is needed and I wonder if you might do so for those who still suffer this this imaginary and harmful notion.

While it is taught in Psychology that religious beliefs can be part of a person's identity, there is no credible evidence of a god or gods making this an arational belief. Anthropology of Religion defines this kind of Magical Thinking with things like prayer, human sacrifice(has a section on the crucifixion of Jesus), witchcraft, observation of taboos, superstitions, and magic while believing these actions can have a causal effect on universal outcomes. This type of Magical Thinking is different than daydreaming about goals that one can achieve through actions. There's no practical reason for believing that which isn't true.

Faith can be defined as the purposeful denial of reality to hold true to a belief. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and defines what we can say we know rather than what we believe to be true.

In the Christian myth, complete control over every aspect of the believer’s life forces them to worship the jealous Abrahamic God as mentioned in Exodus 20:5 with the threat of eternal torture after death. Followers are not allowed to develop relationships with anyone who doesn’t share their belief 2 Corinthians 6:14-17.

This article goes into great detail as to the many ways it is related to Stockholm syndrome. www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/is-the-christian-relationship-with-god-healthy/?repeat=w3tc

When children are brainwashed into this cult by adults using indoctrination techniques such as telling them that the things in the bible are true and that snakes and burning bushes can talk or that people can rise from the dead after three days causes problems in distinguishing fact from fiction. The use of presuppositional arguments for example are sometimes used to gaslight the child's reality. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12138/abstract

One thing many christians don't realize is that Matt 1:23's mistranslation of the Hebrew word almah shows Mary to be a young maiden or young woman of marriageable age meaning she was over the age of 14. This means that the story is of an infinitely old creator impregnating a 14 year old after having her groomed. Age of Consent laws were not established until the 13th century but an all-knowing and all-loving god would have known that. Special pleading is a fallacy and should not be used to excuse this vile behavior anywhere.

The story is similar to that of the Rape of Persephone at the age of 15 in Greek mythology described in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter; however, in this Christian myth John 10:30 says I am my father, and John 14:28 says his father is greater than him so we're not quite sure who is who. From the several hundred self-refuting verses in the bible we've been able to determine that he impregnated Mary with himself to have himself in order to sacrifice himself to himself to save the people from himself. Obviously, this makes as much sense as claiming I stubbed my toe to pay your mortgage....then there's the story of the Canaanites. Conclusion; the Abrahamic god not only molests children but condones and orders his people to do it but homosexuality is a sin. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2012/07/children-and-virgins-as-spoils-of-war-and-the-character-of-god/

Theology is a respected branch of Metaphysics using Abstract Thinking where Bayesian probability arguments are typically the most respectable. "this this and this are true, therefore, there is a high LIKELIHOOD that X is true, and X has a decent likelihood of being caused by a creator god, therefore I'm confident enough in that probability to think a god exists." While this sounds like gibberish to us, this is how many many arguments for the existence of god sound. Christian Apologetics are not respected because the bible is not credible.

I think I've supported my inductive argument showing this type of belief has no constructive purpose for a person and is indeed harmful. After further investigation, I hope you can agree it does not hold value and should be done away with; obviously I don't mean my entry. I look forward to your response and working with you in the future.

Thank you in advance, DavidLWinkler (talk) 14:55:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC) ~~~~ Please forgive the signatures.

@Davidlwinkler: Hi! Thanks for your message - I can see you've put a lot of thought into this. However, Wikipedia has strict no original research and neutral point of view policies. I removed your edit as non-constructive because it introduced a statement to the Stockholm syndrome without reliable sources, phrased in a way that even I - an atheist with plenty of personal reasons to dislike Christianity - regard as extremely contentious.

While I'm happy to answer queries on my talk page, other editors to the Stockholm syndrome page won't see this, so there's limited purpose to continuing the discussion here. The best course of action would be to start a discussion on the Stockholm syndrome talk page, explaining the edit you want to make and citing reliable sources. Please note that the two links you've given to patheos.com blogs do not meet the definition of "reliable sources"; see the link above for guidance on what makes a source reliable.

FYI, I can see that another editor has reverted your second edit to Stockholm syndrome, so I would strongly advise you not to reinsert the statement without discussing on the talk page; just in case you weren't aware, WP:3RR explains that editors who make more than three reverts to a page within a 24-hour period may be blocked for edit warring. You've been very reasonable and open about wanting to discuss the proposed change, so I wouldn't want you to receive a block for good faith edits!

Final quick note - Wikipedia's user names are case sensitive. To make sure your signature links to the right pages, you should probably amend it to [[User:Davidlwinkler|DavidLWinkler]] ([[User talk:Davidlwinkler|talk]]). At the moment, your signature directs people to a user that doesn't exist.

I hope all this helps! Marianna251TALK 16:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I came here because you keep YOUR page cleaner than the talk page of this topic and I wanted to make my points without needing to debate several people. Having said that, this is not my original idea but instead one I got from a guy with a Philosophy degree in Cognitive Neuroscience; Sam Harris. But, how do I source a Youtube video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-i3mX0YRrjM

As far as the credentials to write on such a topic,

Thank you again, DavidLWinkler (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi David. Youtube videos can be cited as a reference using the wiki markup detailed on this page.

While I appreciate the compliment on my talk page, I can't help you further. It's totally fine to use my talk page to discuss my edits/reverts specifically, as in your original message, but general discussion about a change to an article page belongs on the article's talk page. Please take the discussion there. Marianna251TALK 19:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

While the video supports it being a Cult of Human Sacrifice, I have no support for the other. I appreciate your time and your help. Back to the drawing board I go... DavidLWinkler talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me?

---

You flagged my edits as disruptive, I don't want to be disruptive. I removed any text from the ReConnect Cafe` edit that I made which I thought might be promotional and left only facts of the business that is at 221 Main Street Delta, PA. I made those edits because when I googled ReConnect Cafe` looking for information about it, the wiki page was about a place in NY but they don't have the exact same name. ReConnect Cafe` (with that exact spelling and capitalization) The information currently on the ReConnect Csfe` page reflects the detail of RECONNECT Brooklyn or Re-Connect Cafe` (as they have it on their facebook page). If I cannot change the content, can the title be changed? A change needs to be made one way or another for accuracy reasons.

(talk page stalker) You took an article on one subject, destroyed it and replaced it by an article on a different subject, apparently (going by your username) in an attempt at marketing that other café. If even in retrospect you cannot see how that's disruptive, then your conflict of interest obviously is too strong to edit Wikipedia in a constructive manner. You likely have also violated the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use on paid contributions without disclosure.

Regarding the article name, Edible Brooklyn reports the New York café's name is "ReConnect Café". FastCompany calls it "ReConnect Cafe". A Google News search for "ReConnect Café" gave nine Brooklyn-related results, some of them quite detailed, versus one Pennsylvania-related, a passing mention that does not provide any details. While the exact capitalization and punctuation of the name differs somewhat between sources, it's abundantly clear that the café most commonly referred to by that name is the Brooklyn one. Whether that's notable enough for an article in the first place is debatable; the Pennsylvania one, however, clearly is not. Huon (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Following on from Huon's comments, if you're really, sincerely interested in making a positive contribution to Wikipedia, then I think you need to do three things to avoid future disruption:

1. Read Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest and follow the guidelines there;
2. Read WP:NOTPROMOTION; and
3. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy page; it's a fairly long article, but it gives good examples and advice on how to word your edits so they're factual and unbiased.

Also, please sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. Hope this helps! Marianna251TALK 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not associated with ReConnect Café in Delta. I frequent the establishment but as a customer only, I do not provide them any services, they have never paid me for anything. What happened is the result of my ignorance in regards to the way Wikipedia works, my my blind desire to "fix" what I thought was a mistake, and a poorly executed attempt at lending a hand to the nice folks at my local coffee shop. I don't wish to ruffle feathers, I am sorry if I made your day difficult Marianna251. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.33.68 (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@72.95.33.68:/@Marketermanager: I'm actually really glad you reached out! It's nice to talk to someone who's made a mistake or two and is honestly trying to learn; I do a lot of recent edits patrolling, so I usually end up talking to people who like to insert rude comments into random pages instead of people who are genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia. There's lots of help available if you're interested in contributing in general, so hopefully you won't be put off by those of us who've been on Wikipedia long enough to sometimes forget what it's like when it's all new and confusing. Marianna251TALK 22:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

To say I am confused by navigating wiki would be an understatement, obviously I know only enough to get myself into trouble! Although I can't say I am going to be looking to contribute to anything on wiki anytime soon, I will be sure to reach out for assistance in the future so that it is done through the proper channels. Again, I am sorry for the mess I made.Marketermanager (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Have some empty carbs and sugar; my treat.

You've been on quite the tear: reverting vandals left, right, and center. If ever you remember your previous account I'd be interested to know. Regardless, I'm very impressed with your edits as Marianna251. Keep up the good work. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Oooh, sugar, thank you! As for my previous account, I really have no idea. I kind of wish I did, just so I can look back at edits I made over a decade ago and cringe-laugh. If I remember the details correctly, I think I'd just started Uni, so it would have been somewhere around 2003 to 2005. Anyway, thank you very much for the compliment and the feedback - it's great to know that I've been helping. Marianna251TALK 00:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Self-trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Self-trouted for being a twit. Marianna251TALK 01:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

YOUNG LIFE

Can you let me finish my edits before you take them down. Trying to make them neutral and just provide the information Lovetroll (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Lovetroll: Hi! If you're in the process of making a large edit, particularly a potentially controversial one like the one at Young Life, it's a good idea to utilise WP:SANDBOX. There's a link on the main sandbox page that will tell you how to make your own sandbox in your user space so you don't have to use the open version, which will likely have edits saved over the top.

At the moment, your edit does not belong in the article, because it is a) unsourced and b) does not adhere to the neutral point of view policy. I suggest working on your edit in your sandbox and then posting a message on the Young Life talk page asking for comment from other editors. That way you avoid breaching any of Wikipedia's policies while also getting some support and feedback from more experienced editors. Please note that re-adding the edit now will take you over WP:3RR, which can lead to your account being temporarily blocked, so I strongly advise that you read the 3RR article to make sure you don't hit that pitfall.

I hope this helps! I'm happy to answer questions if you need some more info. Marianna251TALK 21:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been here for years.

I once spent a least half an hour patrolling a page that was getting vandal-bombed. On good days, I'm even faster than ClueBot. HalfShadow 19:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Because things. HalfShadow 19:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@HalfShadow: New life goal: beat ClueBot to vandalism. Thank you so much for the barnstar! Marianna251TALK 19:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

February 29

Ah, I was reading that incorrectly - I did not read it as 2016's leap day, but rather thought it was a typo and that it was meant to say "today is leap day". Thanks for the clarification, Garchy (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No probs! Marianna251TALK 22:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Donald Drumpf

I'm getting the feeling that it's gotta either be protected or deleted. I say this as the creator. pbp 22:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: I think you're right. The article on Donald Trump has been protected, so it looks like IPs intent on vandalising have gone looking for any possible alternative. Because they clearly have nothing better to do with their time. Where did "Drumpf" come from, by the way? I haven't come across it before, but if it's something people have searched for then it seems logical to keep the page. Marianna251TALK 00:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason that Drumpf exists as a redirect as a redirect is because it is the ancestral name of Trump's family (perhaps as recently as his grandfather; we're not really sure), and also has the side benefit of being fairly close in spelling to almost be a common misspelling. It is getting an uptick in traffic and vandalism at the present time because comedian and social critic John Oliver has suggested that Trump be referred to as "Drumpf". pbp 00:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense! I imagine the media in the US has a lot more Trump-related news than I see in the UK. I don't know if there's been enough recent vandalism to warrant page protection, but it's on my watch list, so if the vandalism continues I'm happy to jump on an RFPP request. Marianna251TALK 00:35, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say if it gets vandalized twice more in the next 48 hours, one of us should RFPP. pbp 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

An admin's protected the page irrespective of any further vandalism, so it looks like a moot point now. :) Marianna251TALK 14:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

User talk:117.242.254.54

Kindly look at Talk:Social work for the reasoning and thank you for the correction. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.254.54 (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

AGF, plz

AGF, please ;o) Jim1138 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: Could you let me know what came across to you as non-AGF? I do want to keep assuming good faith (otherwise I'd have given up and filed an SPI investigation), so it'd be good to know where I'm slipping. Marianna251TALK 11:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You are doing fine. I just happened upon that and had to share it with someone. AGH (assumed good humor) from the self-trouting above! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Good good! I did lol at the lolcat. :) Seriously, though, if you ever do think I have stepped over the line or might be nearing it, please drop me a line. It's always tough to know just how you're coming across over the internet. Marianna251TALK 11:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Page was protected 3 days (my request). Doing that right thing can be very hard. I rarely watch others carefully enough to see aberrant behavior. I do occationally EW template people and free-form the regulars (WP:DTTR). Also point out to others their uw-vand template was improper as it is really a content dispute. My brain malfunctions when presented with something not much more complicated... I would really like someone or something watching over me with their finger hovering over my . You are doing good, Marianna! Keep it up! Best Jim1138 (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ooooh, I'm with you on the off button. That would be so useful. Good call on the page protection! I don't normally look up IP locations, but some of the comments seemed off - one IP saying they'd done X when the history logged showed another IP had made that edit, etc. - so it seemed like the time to use WHOIS, if ever there was one. Cheers! Marianna251TALK 12:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ballot access

Hello,

I recently made an edit to the Ballot access page for requirements for Alabama. I made this on a work computer and did not have an account at the time. I now have an account. My edit was correct. I do find it interesting you thought it was incorrect when it originally had uncited 2006 data. I have made my edits again with a couple of sources this time. When I made the original edit I did not know of a place where the actual number was listed.But being a Alabama voter I knew it was 3% and I know what the numbers were in the 2014 governor election. I hope my sources are adequate, if not let me know and I will track down more/others.

Regards, ONeill25 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONeill25 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Oops - really sorry about that wrong block - I was trying to block the IP vandal that just vandalised this page and clicked the button in the wrong place.  —SMALLJIM  12:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought that might be the case! No worries, it made me giggle. :) Thanks for catching that IP vandal edit, too. Marianna251TALK 12:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	You deserve this. I nearly gave you the Barnstar of Good Humor for smiling at my accidental block, but this one won. So thanks for helping to keep Wikipedia clean :)  —SMALLJIM  13:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! Marianna251TALK 14:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I looked at your insult page and... I don't really know what to say. I'm really sorry about all that. GAB^Hello! 20:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate the thought! Thank you for being so caring. Honestly, though, you don't need to worry about it causing me a problem. I'm keeping track of it because I started getting the impression that a lot of the insults I get are specific to me being female, but I wasn't sure whether it was just that I noticed the gendered ones more or if I really was getting more gendered than non-gendered, hence tracking them. If I was going to be bothered by idiots being offended that I'm female and on the internet, I'd have stopped going online years ago. Most of the time I just want to pat them on the head and say, "Yes, dear." Marianna251TALK 21:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Whatever works for you, I guess. I've been called everything from a terrorist to a Marxist. GAB^Hello! 22:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Why was my edit put back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.34.51 (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Your edit has been removed because it is clearly a faked "news" report, including an obviously manipulated image of a tombstone, and thus constitutes vandalism. Even if your edit was not a blatant hoax, however, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and the edit does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, thus it would be removed anyway. Marianna251TALK 16:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What?

I spent about an hour on that change a you have the audacity to change it? I know I by accident undone the stupid edit but take that one out and keep the real info. If you don't change it back I'm reporting you for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.36.136 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Reported — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.58.36.136 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You have an edit history of vandalism consistent with one user and at least on other IP blocked in the last hour for vandalism. Your edit to Davenant Foundation School included the deliberate addition of hoax information. Go ahead and report me for vandalism if you want, but I don't think you'll get anywhere with it. Marianna251TALK 20:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Whats wrong with you?

Your delating infomation about a teacher I loved and you're just taking it away? do you even go to this school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.245.37.139 (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This information is a hoax and you know it. Also, you're clearly the same user who's now been blocked three separate times for inserting hoax information and trying to insult me. Keep trying, hon, it's clearly working. :) Marianna251TALK 20:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to vandalise more articles, catch me if you can, I'll be waiting for you to change back well thats if you can find me 😂

Well, you've just been blocked, so good luck with that. Marianna251TALK 20:40, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation Pokémanics anonymous

If you are interested in Pokémon articles, you may like to join WikiProject Pokémon, a group of editors who work together to improve Pokémon articles. You can help with our current collaborations and find out more information on editing articles, as well as discuss Pokémon-related information. We hope to see you there! --GameBoy232 (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I've only edited Pokemon pages as part of anti-vandalism efforts, though - I do own a Pokemon game, but I've never got around to actually playing it. Maybe later. :) Marianna251TALK 21:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I keep running into you! (And you revert vandalism, report users to AIV, and warn users faster than me.) Good thing I have reviewer rights or else I'd be really bored. Peter Sam Fan 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle is a wonderful thing. Thank you for the barnstar! Marianna251TALK 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome! I use Twinkle too, but sometimes other users are faster than it. --Peter Sam Fan 19:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone help me contacting a critic

---

How do I get in direct contact with a person denying my edits ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac4tt (talk • contribs) 03:20, 22 March 2016‎ (UTC)

@Ac4tt: To contact an editor directly on Wikipedia, you'd post a message on their user talk page, just like you did in this case on Marianna251's talk page. The format for the name of the page is "User talk:Username". For example, my username is NickW557 and so my user talk page is found at User talk:NickW557. If you were trying to contact Marianna251, you're in the right place, since this is that user's talk page. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 03:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ac4tt: Based on the type/content of your edits, I believe I reverted your edit when you were posting as User:110.164.243.3 on CIA Tibetan program. If so, please note that you've been given explanations as to why your edits have been reverted by myself and other editors, in addition to warnings for disruptive editing. If you're still having trouble understanding why your edits were reverted and you believe they should be included, please start a discussion on Talk:CIA Tibetan program and remember that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so you will need to provide a reliable source for your proposed changes. Marianna251TALK 10:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

LGBT in Islam

I am a Muslim and the materials I have written on the articles comes from the perspective of a Muslim, which should be given more priority then the materials written on the point of views of non Muslims. Regardless I see no reason why my valid statement that homosexuality and sodomy is the 11th major sin in Islam has been removed, as it is a fact that is on our scriptures and I have even given a reference to it: http://www.al-islam.org/greater-sins-volume-1-ayatullah-sayyid-abdul-husayn-dastghaib-shirazi/eleventh-greater-sin-sodomy Please allow me to add only that material again as it is valid and comes from the point of view f a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.97.137.179 (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@58.97.137.179: While I understand that you feel your edits are important, they are not something that is appropriate to Wikipedia in their current format. The primary issues were that the edits were highly biased, not supported by reliable sources, and interjected an opinion into the article as if it were fact. The edits declared that any muslim who disagreed with your views was not actually a muslim, and implied that sources contradicting your statements were part of a scientific conspiracy to control population growth.

Wikipedia does welcome viewpoints from all across the world, but it is also an encyclopaedia, meaning that it should only publish information reflected from the sources used, and should be worded in a way that makes it clear that the text reflects what is written in the sources. It means that while "X is true" is not appropriate, "Y said in Z that X is true" may be appropriate. It also means that we do not bias any view above another and strive to avoid giving undue weight to minority viewpoints.

I encourage you to continue contributing to Wikipedia, but please be aware that your contributions must follow Wikipedia's guidelines or they are likely to be removed. Reinsertion of reverted edits may be perceived as disruptive editing and could lead to a block, so it's important that you understand the policies so you don't accidentally fall afoul of them. I recommend reading what Wikipedia is not, the neutral point of view policy, the verifiability policy (details what constitutes a reliable source), and the no original research policy before you make any further edits. If you have questions, you can use the {{Help me}} template on your talk page to attract attention from an experienced editor.

As a quick final note, please sign your talk page posts with ~~~~. Marianna251TALK 19:28, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies

Dear Marianna,

At some point this morning I noticed that you cleared a comment that was placed on the 'Marsden' Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, I had left my iPad logged on and on that page, and left the room, filled with other people and someone told me that they edited the page. And I would therefore like to formally apologise for you having to clear that page and would really like to inform you that this was not me, and j have felt extremely terrible all day after forcing you to clean the page after 'my' visit and would again like to confirm that this was in fact not me, but somebody else who had access to my iPad when I had left the room.

Sincere apologies, and wishing you well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.16.230 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for getting in touch. The edits were reverted, so it's not a problem, but you might want to consider creating an account if you make contributions to Wikipedia semi-regularly. An account would keep track of your edits, meaning they'd establish the kind of editing history you normally have. That way, it would be obvious if someone else edited while logged in as you. Marianna251TALK 19:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Stan Kronke

Thank You for cleaning up the Stan Kroenke article to show less bias. However a user named Illusion87 has dedicated his entire wikipedia time to presenting a biased fans view. All of his edits are just on the one subject, which I would think is a violation of wikipedia policy. His research is purely original and is from sports opinion pieces. 2605:E000:1523:81:E933:272A:FD2F:BB75 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Down 2000

Franssen Effect

Hi, Marianna. I recently amended an article on the Franssen Effect, to bring it in line with Wikikpedia's style recommendations, viz., that the variety of English used for an article should best reflect the main nationality associated with the subject. Franssen was Dutch and in the Netherlands the variety of English spoken (and spoken extremely well by most of the population) is that which Americans call 'British English' and the rest of the world calls 'English' (cf. Haitian French, Canadian French, French -- not 'French French'). This seems to be true of Germany and Scandinavia as well. Would I be right in concluding that you yourself are American? That would explain a certain arrogance in treating a non-anglophone nationality as meriting 'American English'. Kind regards, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.152.79 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@27.33.152.79: See MOS:RETAIN for why I reverted your changes. Consistent usage of a variety of English within an article should not be changed without consensus, unless there is a strong national tie to the topic. The Franssen effect is not specific to any nationality, therefore there's no reason to change an established variety of English - Franssen being Dutch doesn't make his discovery exclusively Dutch. Also, I'm British. Please remember to assume good faith. Marianna251TALK 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Argumentation Theory

Marianna, With your advanced knowledge of HTML, is there a chance you do side work for people? I'm trying to learn as always and am trying to support a citation request for the first paragraph under Argumentation_theory. This is what I have, but when saved it shows several mistakes.

Frans H. Van Eemeran, Rob Grootendorst (2004). "A Systematic Theory of Argumentation" (PDF). Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Philosophy: 12. ISBN 0-521-83075-3 (hard) ISBN 0-521-53772-x (soft)

Thank you again for all your contributions and anti-vandalism work, DavidLWinkler - the guy who still doesn't know how to sign his work.

Argh, what a simple mistake. Muchas gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Davidlwinkler: Hi David! Sorry for the long delay in my response - I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. It looks like Frietjes was the one who fixed the error, so many thanks to them! Marianna251TALK 11:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Transition in not a verb.

Despite its increasing use as such, "transition" is not--and can not be used as--a verb. While it has become faddish to "verb" this noun, the fact is that "transit" is the verb form. If "transit" does not fulfill the requirements for the context, then perhaps "move" should be used. Language should not be subjected to the nonsensical whims of an atavistic sensibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonkanelittleton (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jasonkanelittleton: Ironically, it's "transit" that can only be used as a noun. "Transition" can be used as both a noun and a verb depending on the context: see [1] and [2]. I have re-reverted your edit to the grammatically correct version.

Please remember to assume good faith when interacting with other Wikipedia editors and to sign your talk page edits with ~~~~. Marianna251TALK 15:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

While you have provided documentation that asserts your claims, they are specious modern definitions. The problem with dictionaries is that they eventually include any definition that is in use, not necessarily the correct ones only. Transit is most certainly a verb (as well as a noun, its genesis in Latin transire (to go across), and it is the root of the noun transition. Logic dictates that a verb modified with "-ition" becomes a noun; it is the instance of an action. The fact that post modern discourse misuses these words (transition, reference, Etc) as nouns( and thus online dictionaries dutifully define them as such) does not change the reality of the words' actually meanings. The Oxford English Dictionary is the Standard Authority for the English Language; while it does include transition as a noun, its primary definition is as a noun. Transit is defined as both a noun and a verb. Ultimately, the argument is meaningless if one fails to recognize that the language should be based on some authority both historic and logical. I maintain that this is a nonsensical misuse of the word--in what circumstance would transition be needed when transit would not? The answer is never--there is no need to "verb" transition in order to meet some unfulfilled demand that transit can not. Either way, I do not have the inclination to continue this pointless exercise; do what you want--the internet has no academic legitimacy.Jasonkanelittleton (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jasonkanelittleton: WRT sources, I don't see how the Cambridge University Press dictionary can be considered a specious source. It's also horribly ethnocentric to claim that the OED holds supremacy over all other dictionaries for other English-speaking languages given that it's based in UK English only.

That aside, if English were a static language - indeed, if there was only ever one variety of English at any one time - then we would all understand Chaucer's works at first glance. The fact that Chaucer's English is so far removed from our own that it requires translation is an example of the fact that all languages, English included, evolve, grow and change over time. Words in English can sometimes mean wholly different things in different contexts at the same time in history, i.e. the difference between legal English and conversational English. I recommend reading The Stories of English by David Crystal to get a better understanding of this point - he puts it much better than I can. Plus it's just generally a good book.

Finally, who ever said English was logical, or even that it needs to be? Our grammatical "rules" are ridiculous - we have a huge number of rules that have more exceptions than actual examples. English is a mongrel language that gleefully borrows words from other languages and incorporates them into its own lexicon. American, British, Indian, African, Australian English etc. have many things in common and just as many differences, not to mention regional variations within the national varieties - English is not and never has been one single, unified language with a historical and logical basis. It's a mishmash of contradictions and wholesale theft from other languages, all jammed together into a mess. I love this language, I really do, but it's about as far from logical and sensible as one can get.

Language is a vehicle for communication and exists independent of any attempts to control it. English, nonsensical as it is, functions perfectly well in that regard. Marianna251TALK 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Richard Sherman

I noticed that it says you edited the page a couple days ago, and I wanted to point out an error I found, it says Richard Sherman has the 3rd most interceptions of active players behind aquib talib and Charles Woodson, and Charles woodson has actually retired. if you want a source it would take a quick google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.87.32 (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the info, but I only edited the Richard Sherman page to revert a gibberish addition I noticed while patrolling recent changes. I don't have any interest in him or in American football. However, you can make the changes yourself - the page is under pending changes protection, which means that any edits you make while logged out will need to be approved, but you can still make those changes. Marianna251TALK 15:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I don't think we've ever directly interacted with each other before, but I still remember your excellent anti-vandalism work from a few months ago and am happy you've come back. Sro23 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Aw, thank you! Life bonked me on the head for a bit, but I've found some spare time now. :) Marianna251TALK 17:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Edits

please stop reversing good faith edits when properly sourced. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.155.57 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

You have been introducing factual errors into articles by linking to sports teams, claiming that they are colleges. This is misleading; please stop it. Marianna251TALK 18:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator?

You might be interested in this. Sro23 (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sro23: Ooh, thanks for the heads up. Looks like the account's already been banned as both a sock and an impersonator - that was fast! Marianna251TALK 22:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Erick Sermon

Hello

Instead of deleting all of the cites please tell me which ones you feel are wrong so they can be corrected because all are not wrong papergirlnumberone@gmail.com24.99.174.237 (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming you're the same IP as User:73.106.79.161? If so, I left some templated messages on your talk page to explain why I reverted your edits. Just to be clear, I reverted your edits because they weren't appropriate for an encyclopaedia. IMDb and Instagram are not reliable sources, and Wikipedia is not a means of promotion but your edits came across to me as promoting Erick Sermon. Wikipedia is particularly strict with what information can go into the biographies of living persons, so you'll find that your edits are more likely to be reverted when they concern living people.

I'm really glad that you want to contribute to Wikipedia, but before you make any more edits, you should check out our welcome page. Wikipedia can be quite big and daunting, particularly when you're starting out, but there are lots of guidelines and other articles to help you find your way. To start with, I recommend reading what Wikipedia is not, the notability guidelines, the neutral point of view policy, and the no original research policy. If you have questions, you can ask experienced editors at the Teahouse. Hope this helps! Marianna251TALK 14:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Kent Harper

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/fake-castings-on-imdb-pro

This is IMDB's own talk page this is very much a creditable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekyllhide (talk • contribs) 17:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/fake-listings The whole Wikipedia page for this fictitious character is under investigation, this page really should be removed, to protect individual that might be swayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jekyllhide (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Please see Talk:Kent Harper - I've left an explanation there. Marianna251TALK 17:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jekyllhide: The Kent Harper page has been deleted for copyright infringement, which means the talk page has been deleted as well. For reference, I'll restate my reasons for removing the "Movie listings" section here: IMDb and its talk pages are not reliable sources because they are not fact-checked. A reliable source would be something like a published book (not self-published) or an article in a mainstream newspaper. The need for a reliable source is particularly strict when it comes to biographies of living persons. To quote from WP:BLPSOURCES:

"Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources."

The sources you provided were essentially forum discussions and/or user-submitted articles added with no oversight or fact-checking, making them even less reliable than tabloid journalism, if that's possible. I would have had absolutely no problem with the edit if either of us had been able to find any reliable sources, but without that, the edit had to be removed.

I hope this makes sense. If you have any other questions, please let me know! I really appreciate your efforts to contribute to Wikipedia and I'm sorry that we've ended up in conflict over this issue. One quick last thing - on talk pages, please sign your comments with ~~~~. Signing your comments it much easier to hold a conversation. Marianna251TALK 10:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

San Gabriel Complex Fire

Heyo! Question for ya. Saw you reverted a bunch of edits on San Gabriel Complex Fire. I didn't see anything really wrong with them. What did you see that I missed? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I've had another look - I intended to revert one edit which showed up on recent changes patrol as unexplained removal of sourced content, but it looks like I accidentally reverted a lot more than that. Thank you for pointing out my mistake! I've amended the article to what I actually intended to do... Marianna251TALK 00:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

HAHA!!! Right on man. Been there... Glad I could help out. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)