User talk:Marianna251/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Chris Troutman (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

January 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to J2K does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. When you revert you really HAVE to leave an edit summary. And if you don't explain what a user does wrong, you lay the foundation for conflict. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hi! I usually use Twinkle or Huggle to revert vandalism edits. Any time I make an edit or revert something I don't think is vandalism, I leave a summary explaining the changes. You'll note that my edit summaries on J2K have (HG) in them, indicating that Huggle was used, which means that Huggle auto-generated my edit summary and I had no control over it. I really don't think this notice is fair in the circumstances - if you think that a greater edit summary is required when reverting vandalism, please take it up with the Huggle programmers. I don't have the programming skills to make such a change myself. Marianna251TALK 18:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Eh, if the user doesn't know what they did wrong, how are they supposed to improve? I'm an admin; I can't smell whether you're reverting vandalism or not if you don't indicate what you're doing (there is no indication that it was vandalism). Using Twinkle or whatever doesn't remove the burden of giving a basic explanation of what you're doing. With Twinkle, which I use, you can--it's up to you to make it work one way or another. The user is now blocked, but likely had no idea what they did wrong. Twinkle or Huggle or not, you could have left a human, hand-typed note on the user's talk page, like I just did. That is not too much to ask. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: I understand your point and I agree that I could have left a better message on the user's talk page, and I'll try to do so in future. However, your original message here was that I had not left an edit summary, not whether I had left a note on the user's talk page. As stated, if I'm using Huggle, then I have no control over the edit summary, and it is clear from the auto-generated edit summary that I was using Huggle. As a result, it seems to me - rightly or wrongly - that benefit of the doubt was offered to the new user but not to the older one. I'm not looking to start an argument by pointing this out; I just want to make it clear why I still think your original message was unfair, even though I also think that you have a point and you're right that I didn't properly explain myself to the user in this case.

I guess we also disagree on whether the edits in question were clearly vandalism - to me, they were, but obviously not to you. We could get into a debate on whether anything is obviously vandalism (if someone inserts gibberish, is that vandalism or an editing test? If it's an editing test the first time, is it still one the second? Abuse of tags is listed as vandalism on the policy page, but is it really vandalism or is it disruptive editing? etc.) but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this situation overall. Thanks for your time. Marianna251TALK 18:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism is a malicious effort to subvert the project. I think this edit/these edits could have been considered vandalism, sure. Your gibberish example, yeah, vandalism or not--in the end they're equally blockable, though admins block sooner for vandalism than for tests. ("ouivgnsldkgnb;lgf" is a stupid test.) This was instantly blockable, in my opinion, and that's what I did. As for Huggle, I don't use it. It doesn't even say "vandalism"--Twinkle does, if I select "rollback vandalism". But again, a message on the user talk page would have made all the difference. This is not about one getting more good faith than the other: the other user is blocked, and you and I are talking. I would also like for you to consider how many of these rollbacks we admins see constantly--and you know some users do nothing but patrol Recent changes and roll back vandalism. That's useful, but they expect admins to act on their reports, and without edit summaries and explanations that just makes so much more work for us. Anyway, I dropped a note at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback; maybe there is something you don't know, or something I don't know, or something they need to know. Thanks, and carry on, Drmies (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought the Twinkle vandalism rollback option didn't put vandalism in the edit summary either, though? If I remember correctly, this diff was one where I used the vandalism rollback. Fair enough overall - I hadn't thought about it from an admin's perspective when looking at block requests. If it helps yourselves as admin then it's definitely worth adding to Huggle/Twinkle. I've left a comment on the Huggle feedback thread asking if there's a way to change the settings. Marianna251TALK 20:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Excellent--thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Eh, if the user doesn't know what they did wrong, how are they supposed to improve? This is what user warnings are for. I generally object to blocking any user immediately (except for exceptional circumstances) and instead issue them warnings starting from Level 1. The user warnings are also automatically left by Huggle, and they do make it fairly clear that the reverter believed them to be unconstructive, and additionally offers the reverted user the ability to discuss the revert — if they believed it to be incorrect — on the reverter's talk page. Talk page messages are much better at communication than "SMS via edit summaries". —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:K6ka, thank you very much, and I appreciate your youthful enthusiasm. However, templated warnings are just that, templated warnings. Kindly look at the actual edit we were talking about, then look at my comment, and then argue that a templated warning is just as good. I don't know what you mean with "SMS via edit summaries", but it's edit summaries that we see when we click on diffs or when we patrol Recent changes--surely you know this. The edit summary serves more than one purpose, and having one is always better than not having one, don't you agree? Your general objection is noted, of course. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
• Sorry, I'm surprised to hear this from an administrator. Drmies (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: Ah, okay. I actually hadn't seen the diffs in question until just now, so I thought this was a case of regular run-of-the-mill vandalism. Turns out it wasn't. Reverting copyvios is not listed as one of the cases where rollback is appropriate and I will agree that an explained revert would be more appropriate (I always explain my reversion of copyvio edits as such; do poke me if there is one case where I had forgotten to do so). AFAIK there is also no option in Huggle to revert a copyvio as such. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
    • K6ka, I don't think Marianna reverted because of the copyvio concern; I think she reverted because she saw it was a repeated disruptive edit to a dab page. I recognized it as a copyvio and revdeleted it. But that's bye the bye. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

sandbox talk page

I noticed User talk:Marianna251/sandbox; it looks like an IP meant to leave a message on your talk page. While I'd normally CSD this it's in your user space. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks for the heads up! I'll flag it since there's no point having a talk page on my sandbox. If it happens again feel free to act as you feel appropriate. I think I've worked out what the IP is talking about, so I'll reply on their talk page. Marianna251TALK 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Kamini Kaushal

Thank u for helping me by changing and correcting the birthdate....i found myself unable to do that properly. Thank u so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A30F:63A8:59D3:C85C:FA02:B3F2 (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem! If you're interested, you can find instructions on how to use any template by searching "Template:template name" in the Wikipedia search bar. For example, the instructions for the birth date and age template can be found at Template:Birth date and age. Hope that helps! Marianna251TALK 04:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: Proposed merge with List of transgender characters in film and television

Hello, Marianna251. You have new messages at Talk:List of transgender and transsexual fictional characters.
Message added 23:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Qazi Touqeer

I have a source for the correct date of birth, http://www.filmibeat.com/celebs/qazi-touqeer.html He was born 1985, not 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isymilo (talk • contribs) 08:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Organized crime

	Hello, Marianna251. You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Organized crime topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

James Mari

	James Mari
	Please do not delete the Cyclone Airways, thank you Jamesmari (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jamesmari: Hi! I'm not an administrator, so I don't have the ability to delete your page. I restored the speedy deletion tag because, as it says in the criteria for speedy deletion, you as the article's creator are not allowed to remove the tag. There are a number of reasons for this, but primarily it's because the creator of an article can't be objective about its contents the way someone uninvolved could be.

FYI, I left a message for you on your talk page before I saw this one. Marianna251TALK 13:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are you reverting all my edits?

Marianna251 Hi, my name is Brent Levy and I am a Communications Coordinator for Sigma Tau Gamma's National Headquarters. I have been updating this information from our National Website as well as citing the information. I do not understand why you took it upon yourself to remove and rewrite information that you have no ties to this organization. If you have any further questions or concerns you can email my supervisor, Greg Ward, at gward@sigtau.org. Thanks. Blevy97 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Blevy97: I explained why I initially reverted your edits on the article's talk page, which you have clearly seen based on the message you left there, so I won't go over that again. My recent edit was a general edit of the article to try to address its myriad issues. Put bluntly, my edits to the article were to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia's policies, manual of style and other guidelines.

However, based on what you've said here, it also appears that you have a conflict of interest (see also the notice I added to your user talk page). Basically, Wikipedia strongly recommends that you do not edit pages that you have a link with. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a vehicle for advertising or promotion, and adding promotional material can lead to users being blocked from editing. Unfortunately, almost all of the material you've added has been promotional.

I've had to file an edit warring report since you've made it clear you intend to keep reverting the page to your preferred version, but I'll withdraw the report if you can demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia's policies and are willing to abide by them. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I want to be as clear as possible. I'd like to work with you, but we need to be clear that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that nobody owns any particular article. Marianna251TALK 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigma Tau Gamma

A lot more edits were made to Sigma Tau Gamma since your comment on the talk page and 3RR warning to Blevy. Could you take a look at it when you get a moment? He also deleted almost all conversations from the talk page, including your comment. I've since restored. only (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Only: Thanks for the heads up. I'm on UK time, so it looks like this happened overnight for me. I suspect that the now-blocked SigTau2015 may have been a sock, given the similarity of their edits to Blevy's, although it hardly matters since SigTau2015 now has a soft block for having a promotional username.

From a quick skim of the article, it looks like Blevy has taken on board the point about references, and even if they haven't improved the peacock language of the article they've left the peacock tag alone. They're not necessarily being helpful overall, but they are trying, so I don't think an edit warring discussion is the way to go. The article needs editing to neutralise the language anyway, so I've given it a go. We'll see what happens. Marianna251TALK 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making those edits to the article earlier today. I've restored them since the revert. I almost went to 3RR this morning to report but I don't think they'd technically "broken" it yet. I appreciate that you've reported it now after their more recent reverting. only (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for the help. I figured I couldn't actually make the article worse than it was, and it was only as I filed the edit warring report that I realised my edit could itself be considered edit warring. Oops. I'm definitely going hands off on the article until the edit warring discussion is over. Marianna251TALK 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting my funny changes

please stop changing the changes i make to Glenn Tamplin. We are having a good bit of banter so if you could stop being such a killjoy i would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.1.27 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2017

We clearly have a different opinion of what's funny. Also, your edits deliberately introduced factual errors to the article, making them vandalism, which means they will continue to be reverted because they're not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Marianna251TALK 13:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Reversion to incorrect statement in entry to Dennis Prager

The entry on Dennis Prager keeps reverting to this: "falsely claiming that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented." Dennis Prager never said that -- hence there is no citation for it. What he said was an oath on "another religious" book or text would be unprecedented. Here is the source: Prager's column from December 5, 2006: "I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in." 47.34.209.152 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a source provided on the article showing that Prager's statement was false: http://forward.com/news/9621/koch-calls-for-pundits-ouster-from-shoah-council/. To quote from that source:

"Koch, who served as a U.S. representative from 1969 to 1977, said he recalled using a Hebrew Bible at his initial, private swearing-in ceremony. A number of commentators, including Koch, have criticized Prager for factual inaccuracies in his column, including the assertions that Jewish legislators have traditionally used the Christian Bible to take their oaths of office and that use of the Christian Bible is a traditional part of the official swearing-in ceremony."

[...]

"In his interview with the Forward, Koch pointed out that the first observant Jew elected to the British Parliament, Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, vigorously fought against a required Christian oath of office, and succeeded in having the law changed in 1858."

I hope that makes it clear. Marianna251TALK 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandy hook shooting

Please remove. Not relevant to town history. You are probably not even from Newtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2017

Whether you like it or not, the Sandy Hook shooting is part of the town's history. It was an event that received significant media coverage worldwide, making it both notable and relevant to the article. Please do not disrupt the article further by continuing to remove the information.

FYI, please sign your talk page posts using ~~~~ or the signature button at the bottom of the edit box. That way I can tell who has left a message. Marianna251TALK 23:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:4300:fb20:799a:7abb:6e70:34f5 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) No. We deal in reality. If that's not to your liking then Wikipedia isn't for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok.

Wikipedia is for everyone, though. Including me.2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTI

2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Shooting

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I only wanted to spare the world of a grim reminder of a terrible event. We need to work harder to shield future generations from the grim realities of life and make the world a safer and loving place for all peoples. I simply thought that revising history to exclude a terrible event was a good thing to do, but I guess I was wrong. I guess I tried in some small way to make my mark on the world by utilizing proven propaganda techniques. Apparently I failed. It seems the truth cannot be hidden. I am sorry.2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this message; I really appreciate it. I also appreciate the sentiment behind wanting to protect others from a harsh reality and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear or my comments came across as harsh. The thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it's intended to provide information - not indiscriminate information, but it also can't exclude anything on the grounds of morality or sentiment without contradicting its core purpose. I agree with wanting to make the world a better place, although I don't agree that ignoring the past is the way to go about that, and I really do appreciate the intention behind it, but that's just not what Wikipedia is for or about. It's inherently neutral (or at least it should be).

Without wanting to put words into anyone's mouth, when Chris Troutman left the message above saying that Wikipedia might not be for you, I believe what he meant was that editing Wikipedia might not be something that suits you. It doesn't suit everybody. Wikipedia is a huge project with an equally huge set of policies/guidelines and it can be difficult to navigate them. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, though, you'd be very welcome! There's a lot of editors, myself included, who would be happy to answer questions and discuss potential changes. The helpdesk or the teahouse are good places to ask questions. Until you get the hang of the place, it might be better to stick to proposing changes on article talk pages, or using the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.

I hope that helps. Thank you, again, for the apology and your understanding. Marianna251TALK 11:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Okaaaay, having seen this and your edit filter log, I take it all back. Your behaviour at the moment is purely disruptive. Either you're being deliberately disruptive or you genuinely don't understand the issues. Either way, right now you do not belong on Wikipedia. Marianna251TALK 19:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

To editor Marianna251: I've long felt that AGF is for suckers. It'll only take you a few times getting burned like this before you become jaded and cynical enough to just chase the new users away. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Ha, I can see that. I kind of feel like I passed through cynicism years ago (not on Wikipedia, obviously) and now I've cycled back around to a weird kind of optimism. On good days, at least! On bad days, I try to stay away from talking to anyone, especially online, because it makes me wish I could wipe out the whole human race and start over with something new. Maybe hedgehogs, although that might not solve anything. Marianna251TALK 20:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, I apologise if I did put words in your mouth above. I basically meant that everyone can read Wikipedia, but not everyone is suited to editing it, which I figured is what you were saying. Sorry if I overstepped. Marianna251TALK 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary! I have always been blunt, if not harsh. My sibling used to say much the same to my parents because I would inevitably spout off in an unwelcome manner. If I see someone causing problems I try to give them a bit of understanding with a large helping of reprimand. In cases like these I find my misanthropy justified. But you, like many of the better Wikipedians here, have extra stores of patience and will seek to sow concord rather than discord. If it were up to me, I'd've told him/her to go back to Facebook. Your instinct to avoid hurt feelings is a good one, though not one I'll be adopting. I didn't invite any of these users to edit here so I really have no time for their hassles. Perhaps you do. I don't think my faith in you is misplaced. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Cool, glad I didn't offend. For the record, I think both our approaches are needed. Marianna251TALK 21:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

I found it interesting while reading the message about Marriage in Islam. Nikah is actually, simply the marriage written contract. Before Islam there was no written contract in the Arab peninsula. The detail can be easily found in two surah of Quran: first in the Surah Nisa (Book of Women); and second in Surah Talaq (Book of Divorce). Quran is complete code of conduct for anyone who wants to learn the real Islam, whether Muslim or Non-Muslim. I think you'll not find any book by name of Women or Divorce in any other sacred scripture. Quran is the exception. Thanks, Imran Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.194.95.247 (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Just to clarify, I reverted your edits because you removed a complete section on the Marriage in Islam page without explaining why. Unexplained content removal is a common form of vandalism on Wikipedia, so edits like that are likely to be quickly reverted by other editors like myself. It's a good idea to leave an edit summary, particularly if you're removing content or making large changes, or start a discussion on the article's talk page to get consensus before you make the change if you're not sure. Hope this helps. (PS: please sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. Thank you!) Marianna251TALK 21:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry regarding Stephen Moore edit.

Hello there madam. Thank you for what you do on this site! I have no idea why i was flagged as providing inaccurate information. I don't really know who Stephen Moore is let alone have any current interest in him. Im sure hes an amazing guy! I never visited the article, nor have i edited it! This is very odd, perhaps you could provide some advice? By the way I checked my search history and it seems to be completely clean! Regards:

~Matthew Hall.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.88.123.137 (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2017‎

@197.88.123.137: Hi Matthew! Thanks for getting in touch. The reason I left a message on your talk page is because someone using your IP address made a nonsense edit to Stephen Moore (writer), which you can find by checking your contributions. (Just for reference, it was this edit.)

Most IP addresses for home use change every few days, or at least every few weeks, which is why I also left a short comment reading "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices" underneath the message about the edit. Your account would only be controlled by you, whereas your IP address will likely have been used before by other people. Basically, don't worry about it. :)

PS: please sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. The four tildes will add your user name/IP and the date and time of your message, making it easier for other people to respond. Hope this helps! Marianna251TALK 21:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Jalen Ramsey

This is just vandalism stupidity. The "children" listed are Deandre Hopkins, T. Y. Hilton, and A. J. Green. Vandals get their jollies by assigning fatherhood to players who perform well against other particular players. Comedy gold, I know. I've put in a request at WP:RFPP. Lizard (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: Thanks for the info and the RFPP request! I don't know enough about the sport to get the reference, obviously; given the level of vandalism I wondered if it might be a hoax, but yeah, I wasn't sure, so played it safe and reverted as unsourced. Hopefully the page will be protected soon and then the vandals will have to find another "funny" activity to occupy themselves with. Marianna251TALK 00:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Richard Cohen/Aly Raisman

I am discussing things here so that they might be easier to see, and so I might get a quicker response.

Why did you revert my edits on Richard Cohen? They were perfectly sourced. They gave criticisms by Norman Solomon, among others, who has a Wikipedia page of his own.

Why do you revert my edits on Aly Raisman? "Militant" is an NPOV term, "terrorist" is not.

I do not mean to get POV in this discussion, but as you know, as an edit summary I wrote this:

"IF the Palestinians and the Arabs regard all Israeli Jews as targets because they insist in occupying land they claim as their own, they apply the same rules of war applied to them when they were evicted at gunpoint."

My point is not that such a viewpoint, if any Palestinians or Arabs have it, is appropriate. It is only to point out that if terrorism is defined as "targeting civilians for death" (which is what terrorism is SUPPOSED to mean), one must consider Israel a terrorist organization, no less than Black September. I marvel that supporters of Israel who (unlike the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs) generally acknowledge the ethnic cleansing of 1948, are blind to their own hypocrisy and special pleading in this regard. Where was the Israeli respect for the innocence of children during the Lydda Death March? How come a Palestinian child who dies in a death march at gunpoint is not an innocent, but a Jewish child killed by an unguided rocket fired into a city with military targets is?

Of course, Israeli targeting of civilians did not end in 1948. Mainstream sources (the world press, international organizations like the UN, respected human rights organizations like Human Rights Watch) have been documenting Israeli war crimes for decades since. In 2006 the Israelis turned South Lebanon into a "free-fire zone" only to be eventually forced to withdraw. If you embark on a war of annhiliation against a largely civilian population, don't try to tell me you never intended to target civilians for death!

I know this may have been POV, but that was my point. "Terrorist" is a POV (as well as notoriously ill-defined) term, "militant" is a relatively defined term and is NPOV.

Please let me know what you think of my proposed edits on both pages.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

1) I reverted your edit to Richard Cohen (columnist) because the source you used was not reliable. Another editor had already reverted your edits with the same explanation. The edit also gave undue weight to a fringe opinion, particularly given the non-reliable source.

2) I reverted your edit to Aly Raisman because, as Huldra explained to you on your talk page, IPs and new accounts are prohibited from editing "Any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". My edit summary also directed you to the relevant arbitration case.

3) I would have reverted your edit to Aly Raisman even without the arbitration topic ban, because your edit changed "terrorist" to "militant" even though the attack listed was the Munich massacre, which has been firmly denoted as an attack by a terrorist group by multiple reliable sources. Your opinion/original research regarding the use of the word terrorist is irrelevant - Wikipedia isn't for original research. We have to follow what the sources say, and the sources say terrorist.

You clearly feel strongly about these topics, as do many others; that was part of why there was an arbitration case around articles relating to Israel and Palestine. I'm not commenting on your beliefs or the reasons behind your edits; only that the edits themselves went against Wikipedia policy and/or arbitration cases for the reasons given, which means that they do not belong on Wikipedia. Hope that clears it all up. Marianna251TALK 12:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I apologize if my edits contravened any Wikipedia regulations-and I promise it will not happen again.

However, I do wish to set one matter clear. In fact, I do not (at least not consciously) feel strongly about the Arab-Israeli conflict per se.

I think Justin Raimondo, my favorite American political commentator, expresses my own views when he says (though I am not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination):

"It isn't Israel we loathe, it's Israel's American amen corner, typified by La Mercer...Why, we just love Israel, and would love it even more if only its leaders and supporters would commit war crimes on their own dime, without American aid and without continually hectoring us for more. Look, nobody really cares about Israel, per se: the problem is the effect that nation's knee-jerk supporters have on the American political process and the way their shrill cries distort and degrade the national debate on U.S. policy in the Middle East."

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j081503.html

All I want, as an American, is for my government to not fund and arm either side and disengage from this conflict.

If Israel were to perpetrate its atrocities against the Palestinians, Lebanese, and others on its own I would have little problem with it.

Any anger I feel on this issue is not against the Israelis themselves but against my fellow Americans, who often love and respect the Israelis on either the vaguest of grounds or nonexistent ones-seemingly just because they seem cool!

I did not mean to rant here, but only to clarify that fact.

70.190.102.49 (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough. Thank you for being understanding and discussing this with me here. Marianna251TALK 17:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Choice

Your action to remove the edit is direct evidence that proves my point. Wikipedia itself is slanted against the pro-life movement for reasons I stated. The fact that you would immediately censor such a truth is exactly the point I hoped to make. Why does Wikipedia refer to pro-choice as "pro-choice" but redirects traffic from the "pro-life" page to the "anti-abortion movement" wiki? Why does Wikipedia not allow the pro-life group to be addressed as it desires? The section I edited was a direct reference to the terminology controversy. That controversy is unquestionable, as seen in the edits history (including yours). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.135.42 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you added a paragraph about your objections to Wikipedia's redirect page and measures taken against disruptive editing. Not only does this not belong in article space, given that it was largely an objection to Wikipedia's policies and not to do with the subject of the article, it was wholly unsourced. If I can be very, very blunt, here, I don't care about the content of your edit. I care that statements made in articles on Wikipedia are verifiable, and your edit was not. Wikipedia is not for original research; you must support and edits you make with reliable sources. If you can't find a reliable source, it doesn't belong here. If you persistently edit an article to conform to your opinion and refuse to accept arguments or a consensus view to the contrary, then yes, measures against disruptive editing will be made, which I assume is what happened on the redirect page you mentioned in your edit. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Marianna251TALK 06:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I must agree, though I have not personally done the edits. Wikipedia should perhaps call each side "pro-life" and "pro-choice", or perhaps "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" (one may MORALLY disapprove of abortion while thinking it should not be banned; however in general "pro-choicers" approve of abortions instead of disapproving them, and are in that sense "pro-abortion").

The most NPOV descriptor is the one adopted by the groups themselves, in my view.-70.190.102.49 (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted, but as I explained before, your opinion, my opinion, and the opinion of all other editors on Wikipedia are irrelevant unless you have reliable sources to back you up. No sources = edit reverted. Marianna251TALK 06:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit to JFK assassination theories

Thanks for this, although I think you were too polite. It was a bad edit and probably not "good faith". It has been revision deleted for "serious BLP violations". Personally I would not invite editors in cases like this to come up with sources and re-add the material. It's tough to know what is a potentially valid edit but I think in conspiracy theory articles when something is added that is completely new to the article and is stated as plain fact it's very difficult to assume good faith on the surface of things. I'm really not taking issue what you did just offering my take on how politely such edits need to be dealt with. I would hit plain "rollback" in TW. Thanks again for your work on vandalism. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: Hi! Thanks for the heads up about the edit. From what I can recall, it looked reasonable to me (as someone who knows precisely nothing about JFK assassination/conspiracy theories, other than that they exist), but then that's the danger of hoax edits. Given the rev-del it's obviously not as reasonable as I thought. I'll take your advice on board and probably just stick with "Unsourced" as my rollback reason in future. That's my usual rollback/undo summary - can't remember why I did something different this time. Oh well. Marianna251TALK 02:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent message from your end

Can I attach a link of a news paper article? Infogiant4587 (talk) 06:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ingofiant4587: Apologies for the late response! You can add a newspaper article as a source, although please be aware that some newspapers (e.g. the Daily Mail) should not be used because they are not considered reliable. If you want advice on how to cite a newspaper article, see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Newspaper_articles. Hope this helps! Marianna251TALK 02:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

2004 Ingoldmells bus crash

The article is not complete since vital information is missing. The article is not accurate since it inferred the actions of Topasna were influenced by inexperience with the vehicle and mechanical faults. Court records clearly state that he is solely and entirety responsible. Description and sequence of events is not accurate. Charge of causing death by dangerous driving can only be proved if driving standard fell far below that required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nealnealorangepeel (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I've explained what you need to do in the messages left on your talk page: provide a reliable source that supports the edits you want to make. However, you should bear in mind that edits which simply say "This account is not accurate" etc. will be reverted because they are purely non-constructive. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point.

Given the issues with your edits, I suggest you open a discussion on the article's talk page explaining the changes you think should be made. Please provide reliable sources to support your edits. Personally, I don't think you'll be successful, since there are already reliably sourced statements on the page that directly contradict your version of events, but you are welcome to discuss with other editors who may be able to offer some further advice. Marianna251TALK 23:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Additions by R. L. Folk

Marianna251,

The additions that I am making are at the instructions of R. L. Folk, the author of the additions to this Wikipedia page. In his publications, nanobacteria are spelled nannobacteria. You can check his publications yourself if you are not convinced. Also, Dr. Folk wanted Dr. Brenda Kirkland to get credit for the TEM work that she did. Dr. Folk did not do the work himself, and he asked me to make sure she gets credit for the work she did. In bibliography 24, the publication is Meteoritics and Planetary Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevendm (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@Stevendm: On the assumption that you were editing while logged out as 2602:306:8B2A:CB40:C0B0:3C72:E6F0:2F04, I reverted your edits to Nanobacterium because a) the way one academic spells "nanobacteria" is not a reason to change its spelling in an article unless you are directly quoting a work by that academic (in which case it should also be in quotation marks and clearly referenced), and b) edits like this one are non-constructive and throw doubt on your actions, particularly since you've already had similar edits reverted as non-constructive.

If you're editing on behalf of a particular academic, then you also have a conflict of interest. I strongly recommend you read the conflict of interest guide so you understand what is and is not appropriate when editing Wikipedia in this way. In general, it's recommended that you do not edit articles about which you have a conflict of interest. I hope this helps.

PS: please remember to sign your talk page entries with ~~~~ or by clicking the signature link below the editing window. Marianna251TALK 02:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In the actual publications I included as references, nanobacteria is spelled nannobacteria. Should we spell the word differently than it is spelled in the actual publications?

The transmission electron microscopy was conducted by Dr. Brenda Kirkland. Shouldn't she get credit for the work she did?

The correct publication in reference 24 is "Meteoritics and Planetary Science" as published by Wiley Online Library. You are mistaken when you "correct" me by making it "Meteorology and Planetary Science." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/%28ISSN%291945-5100

Stevendm (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

(FYI, I've intended your reply so we can keep a clear line of conversation going, per WP:THREAD.)

I'm just going to paraphrase what I've already said: the way one academic spells "nanobacteria" is not a reason to change its spelling in an article unless it is in a direct quote from that academic. If it's a direct quote, it should be in quotation marks and clearly referenced. Your edits were neither. Marianna251TALK 01:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit of robin llwyd ab owain

I added some content regarding robin at Ysgol Dinas Bran, i was a student there and i think it is a serious matter that people need to know b about, it shouldn't be swept under the carpet Nathan highs msgs (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nathan highs msgs: I'm assuming that you're referring to the edits made by IP 77.44.28.53 to Robin Llwyd ab Owain?

I'm glad you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, and I'd like to encourage you to keep doing so! However, when it comes to biographies of living people, Wikipedia has some very strict policies on what can and can't be included. All edits made to Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source, but that is enforced particularly strongly when it comes to living people. Unfortunately, some editors have deliberately added false information to Wikipedia in the past, so it's policy to remove anything from an article about a living person that doesn't have a reliable source, whether it's positive or negative.

The only issue with your edit was the lack of a reliable source, so if you are able to provide one then it should be okay; it was well-written and worded neutrally, so my only nitpick (aside from the lack of source) was that it shouldn't go in the lead of the article. In this case, a reliable source would mostly likely be a mainstream news outlet (not including tabloids like the Daily Mail). You'd need to make sure that your edit only includes information detailed in that news article, though - you can't include things you know from personal experience, because other people can't verify that.

If you're not sure how to add a reference, the referencing help page will guide you through adding one.

I hope this helps! If you have any other questions, I'm happy to help, or you can get advice from multiple experienced editors at the Teahouse. Marianna251TALK 02:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I've also left a welcome message on your talk page. The message comes from a template with a lot of useful links to help you get started editing Wikipedia; I hope you find it useful. Marianna251TALK 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Marianna251. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Trans non trans "pronouns"

When talking about a transgender individual, pre transition should refer to them as the gender they were. Post transition they should be referred to as the gender they transitioned to. I.E. "she transitioned to him. When he was Tasha she loved to swim. Now that he's transitioned to a tommie, he would rather to track and field" Recraper (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Recraper: I might accept that argument ... except that that isn't what you did. You changed the content of a quote, thereby making the quote inaccurate, and changed a pronoun regarding Elliot Fletcher's current gender identity to his pre-transition identity. That misgenders him, resulting in a form of hoaxing vandalism and arguably a transphobic personal attack. You might find Wikipedia:Gender identity illuminating. Marianna251TALK 12:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

it is actually word definition

it is actually word definition please stop stop solve not existed problems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.169.6 (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Your edits to Nation were removed because they were unsourced and largely incoherent. Where I could work out what you were saying, it was irrelevant, incorrect or just downright weird.

I believe that English is not your native language. It's likely that there is a Wikipedia in your native language that you may want to contribute to instead. I don't wish to be rude, but I don't think that you have a good enough grasp of English to be able to edit the English Wikipedia without running into huge difficulties. Marianna251TALK 02:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas !!!

Hello Marianna251: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

CAGE

I don't think that currently you do have a balanced view on Cage prisoners. You based your opinions on presumptions. Please let me send you some source materials, so you could learn more. Cautious (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cautious: You are topic-banned from making any edits relating to Cage. Technically speaking, leaving this comment on my page could be construed as violating your topic ban. Please move on and edit something else. Marianna251TALK 12:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Levi bellfield

Hi Marianna251 you say I made a mistake when editing Levi Bellfield birth name but I did not, I am his brother and I know what name he was registered in, I don't know if I am responding to you in the right place but I am very confused how this all works. My brother was registered at hounslow register office in the April May June quarter in 1968 volume 5c page 820 our mothers maiden name was Rabbetts but Levi was registered in his father's name Bellfield. Thanks Sunbury2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbury2 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sunbury2: Hi! Thanks for the query. The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can claim anything from personal knowledge, so there is a policy - particularly when it comes to biographies of living people - that all edits must be verifiable, i.e. backed up by a reliable source. There is a source used as a reference in Levi Bellfield's article that explicitly states that he was born Levi Rabetts, which is why I reverted your edit. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policy on making changes based on personal knowledge/experience is very clear:

• Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people
• Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

These two quotes are from WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY respectively.

However, if you can find a published, reliable source (e.g. an article by a mainstream news outlet, or a book about Levi which has been peer-reviewed/fact-checked) which contradicts the source stating that Levi's birth name was Rabetts, then there would be grounds for a change. It could be amended to explain that he's sometimes described as being born Levi Bellfield and sometimes described as being born Levi Rabetts - you'd need to get consensus with other editors on the article's talk page before removing Rabetts completely, though.

I hope this helps. Wikipedia can be a large, confusing place, but the basic principle here is that because anyone can edit, everything must be independently verifiable. I'm happy to help if you have any further questions, or if I'm not available, you can try the Teahouse or help desk. Marianna251TALK 10:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Levi bellfield

Hi Marianna251 you say I made a mistake when editing Levi Bellfield birth name but I did not, I am his brother and I know what name he was registered in, I don't know if I am responding to you in the right place but I am very confused how this all works. My brother was registered at hounslow register office in the April May June quarter in 1968 volume 5c page 820 our mothers maiden name was Rabbetts but Levi was registered in his father's name Bellfield. Thanks Sunbury2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunbury2 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Sunbury2: Hi! Thanks for the query. The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can claim anything from personal knowledge, so there is a policy - particularly when it comes to biographies of living people - that all edits must be verifiable, i.e. backed up by a reliable source. There is a source used as a reference in Levi Bellfield's article that explicitly states that he was born Levi Rabetts, which is why I reverted your edit. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's policy on making changes based on personal knowledge/experience is very clear:

• Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people
• Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.

These two quotes are from WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY respectively.

However, if you can find a published, reliable source (e.g. an article by a mainstream news outlet, or a book about Levi which has been peer-reviewed/fact-checked) which contradicts the source stating that Levi's birth name was Rabetts, then there would be grounds for a change. It could be amended to explain that he's sometimes described as being born Levi Bellfield and sometimes described as being born Levi Rabetts - you'd need to get consensus with other editors on the article's talk page before removing Rabetts completely, though.

I hope this helps. Wikipedia can be a large, confusing place, but the basic principle here is that because anyone can edit, everything must be independently verifiable. I'm happy to help if you have any further questions, or if I'm not available, you can try the Teahouse or help desk. Marianna251TALK 10:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, Thx for the correction for Euro 2016, how can i change this by staying in the police rules? Thanks a lot Josua MATHIE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josuamathie (talk • contribs) 12:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Josuamathie: You changed the article to claim that the champion of Euro 2016 won by cheating. That's vandalism and will never be acceptable. Marianna251TALK 12:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism occusation

Hello Marianna,

I do not see the problem with my edit. Can you explain it to me more briefly?

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TennisGirl (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@TennisGirl: Don't be obtuse. I'm willing to assume good faith in a lot of cases, but adding things like "Žitnik appreciates sports cars and likes to own the ones that impress, presumably in order to conceal his undersized genital parts" [1] and "He is known as a big manipulator and tends to use girls to feed his own ego" [2] is blatantly vandalism. There's no way to construe that as a good faith attempt to improve Wikipedia. Marianna251TALK 23:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: ANI

Hi, I'm responding here since there is no need to have the ANI thread open because there is no ongoing issue, and there really was never an issue to begin with. AIV is never actually backlogged. Reports are quickly reviewed, and anything that is obvious vandalism and is actively harming the project is dealt with very quickly. It is not an assumption of bad faith on my part to think that 15 blocks in 5 minutes after one ANI post is hasty: I don't necessarily think there are bad blocks, but it is much easier to block than it is too look through diffs, and that when people are up in arms over admins not letting enough blood at AIV, people want to act quickly.

I'm relatively new at this, but I've never been to a crowded AIV and thought that every single report was good. I'm sorry if I was a bit snippy at ANI, but the panic at AN/ANI of late whenever AIV gets more than so many reports is never really justified. I haven't looked through those previous reports, I tried to, but they were blocked too soon for me to do anything about it. I'm not going to look through them now, because I don't believe in criticizing other administrators for things that are within discretion, and whether or not I would have blocked is irrelevant as to whether someone else's block was good. That being said, there is a reason that most of the recent posts at AN have generally held that the backlog at AIV was not a problem, and why a consensus has developed to have a bot clear stale AIV reports: they all get reviewed, and it's almost never necessary to ask for reviews. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see your perspective, and that's fair enough. It can certainly be aggravating if someone keeps insisting there's a problem when there usually isn't. If it helps, I've been primarily doing anti-vandalism since I joined two years ago, and this is the first and only time I've thought AIV actually needed attention, and that was only after I'd had a look through most of the reports myself and agreed with the vandalism warnings and report to AIV. My request at ANI asking if someone could "take a look" was phrased deliberately, because it's not up to me to dictate what action should take place, but I thought it was reasonable to ask for someone to look at it. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

One thing I hope you can clarify for me, though, is what overall message you'd like me to take away from this discussion? If it's to not point out something I think could be a problem re: vandalism/AIV, then, well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that too; if it's to think carefully before asking for AIV attention, then I understand and agree with that, so I guess the disagreement came in over our perspective of whether or not I had thought carefully, which is fair enough - I can't expect you to read my mind.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to leave this message. It's appreciated. Marianna251TALK 11:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the big takeaway would be that anytime there is an AIV backlog, remember that most of the reports have already been reviewed an admin has decided not to act on the reports. If that's the case, there actually isn't an emergency. We block accounts that are being disruptive and reported to AIV very quickly, so if something is there for more than an hour, it isn't a big deal, even if it needs a block. If it's there more than 4 hours, it's likely stale. If it's there for more than 6 hours, it was likely a bad report or is definitely stale. If there is an actual emergency that is in need of a block, then an ANI report on that one user will get the job done if no one is manning AIV, but petty vandalism doesn't usually rise to that level. Like I said, this has been brought to AN multiple times of late, and the usual consensus whenever a discussion happens is "If you don't want a backlogged AIV, stop making bad reports." TonyBallioni (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)