User talk:Marianna251/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Say something about Kingunge article

Howdy? Wondering why you had my contributions on the said article reverted? I might be wrong on date parameter but not to remove and treat it as vandalism act. I was using my mobile to edit the page (the feature which is very difficult to overcome some errors). Learn to inform those who add their inputs on the article. I'm also an experienced editor for over ten years. Show some respect. See you!--Muddyb (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

@Muddyb: As I explained in the edit summary, I reverted your change because it added a date of birth without a source. Adding a full date of birth without a reliable source is against the BLP policy, which states that unless there's a reliable source, it's better to use only the year of birth because of privacy/identity theft concerns (see WP:BLPPRIVACY). I never referred to your edit as vandalism because it isn't. Please show me some respect and don't accuse me of something I didn't do.

I would normally leave a template warning message on an editor's talk page to explain to warn against adding unsourced content, but as you said, you've been an editor for a long time. I decided not to leave a warning template because I thought it likely you already knew that sources aren't optional, and this was just a mistake, not needing a warning. However, if I ever have to revert another of your edits, I'll leave a template, since that seems to be your preference. Marianna251TALK 21:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now please kindly visit this site to see the date of birth and death.. Look for the picture of young lady who's holding a "cross" you'll see the original DOB and DOD. Is this worth using as a credible source? --Muddyb (talk) 06:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Since you've been on Wikipedia for 10+ years, I assume you already know how to identify a reliable source. If you think you have one, go ahead and add it. I have no further interest in the article. Marianna251TALK 10:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That is very rude, my dear!--Muddyb (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a statement of fact. You don't need my input or approval to identify and add a reliable source to an article. What is rude is accusing another editor of something they didn't do, telling them to "show some respect" in response to normal editing procedure, and then condescendingly referring to them as "my dear". Please don't bother me again. Marianna251TALK 13:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:CBAN for Krajoyn

On Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, I have started a discussion of a potential CBAN of Krajoyn which you might have been involved in.

The discussion is linked at WP:CBAN for Krajoyn. Iggy (Swan) 19:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Biacore

Hey, you changed my edits on Biacore saying that its “encyclopedia” not a “how-to” page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_blot is near identical in format - can you provide guidance on how this page is acceptable and mine was not?? thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulebelcher (talk • contribs) 00:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paulebelcher: Hi! Thanks for the query. I reverted your edit because, unlike Western blot, Biacore is a company. It's fine for an encyclopaedic page on a technique to describe that technique, but it is not okay to do the same for a company, plus the edit was wholly unsourced. I should have been more specific in my edit summary and directed you to WP:PROMO and WP:SOURCE, apologies.

However, what is much more concerning about your edit is that LynxTufts flagged it as a copyright violation. Copyright violations will always be removed from Wikipedia. If you would like to contribute, please do so in your own words, making sure that you have reliable sources to support any edit you make. Hope that helps.

PS: please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ or by clicking the signature button. Marianna251TALK 16:23, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Adam Greenberg (cinematographer)

Hi.

I noticed that somebody edited cinematographer Adam Greenberg's page with his birthdate being November 30, 1938, and you had it removed because it was unsourced.

So I looked up any sources that showed his birthdate being November 30, 1938.

And I found one.

Source: www.cinematographers.nl/PaginasDoPh/greenberg-adam.htm.

Would it be alright if I put in the same information as the last time, but with the source added to his page?

2601:1C2:4001:9380:B965:3FD3:36B2:19DE (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@2601:1C2:4001:9380:B965:3FD3:36B2:19DE: Hi! Thanks for the query - sorry my reply is a little late. I've left a message on your talk page as well, just in case the notification system here doesn't ping you.

The key issue isn't just whether an edit has a source, but whether it has a reliable source. Determining whether a source is reliable can get a little complicated, but the key principle (as I see it) is that the source must have been fact-checked by a reputable organisation/person. Self-published sources, or sources like Wikipedia itself where anyone can edit or submit information, are usually not reliable.

I've taken a look at the source provided and in my opinion this wouldn't be a reliable source, because cinematographers.nl allows anyone to submit information and there's no indication that those submissions are then fact-checked. It might be acceptable as a source for some minor information on a different article, but not for a biography of a living person - the content of a BLP can have a real-world impact, so the requirements are enforced much more strictly than they might be in, for example, an article about a place. It gets even stricter when it comes to someone's date of birth because of identity theft. See WP:BLPPRIVACY for more info.

I hope that helps. Thank you for the query! If you have any more questions, I'm happy to help, or you can try the teahouse or the help desk. Marianna251TALK 11:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi there

Please familiarise yourself with a topic/subject before you revert edits, I believe you inadvertently, reverted an edit on Jeff Novitsky's article, which has been discussed and addressed on the talk-page, please next check the talk-page don't just have the temerity to willy-nilly reverting edits. I have now added a citation (which wasn't even required - as Jeff has addressed this issue (Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xxfT301Ii8) Thank you --UserHerName (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@UserHerName: As per the edit summary I left, I have read the talk page and it is very clear that there is no consensus to include the nickname. This has been the case for quite some time, and it is also obvious that you are aware of that fact, since you've engaged in discussion there. I know that it can be frustrating when you want to establish a consensus but discussion has stalled, so you could try WP:RFC to get more editors engaged in the debate; however, the requirement for including a nickname is that it "must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject", which this fails, so personally I don't think you'll be successful. It's probably your best bet at this stage, however.

Finally, please remember to be civil when interacting with other editors. Phrases like "don't just have the temerity to willy-nilly reverting edits" aren't exactly polite. It doesn't show that you're willing to engage in collaborative discussion and is more likely to annoy other editors than persuade them to your position. Hope that helps. Marianna251TALK 17:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

 This is the first warning you're being disruptive now:: Stop this now, I've perfectly explained the reason, in the talk-page, I will open a case against you in WP:DRR if you keep this up. Do not revert, again leave to the last edited version of mine, and we can take this to WP:DRR. Check the timestamps on the talk page, you reverted again without having any discussion or explanation. UserHerName (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@UserHerName: I've indented your message to keep a clear line of conversation going; hope that's okay.

Unfortunately, since you broke the three-revert rule on the article after I warned you, I reported you to the edit warring noticeboard. I've asked for page protection on the article so that we can continue to discuss on the talk page, but please be aware that if another editor reverts you and you continue to revert, an admin may decide that you need a temporary block from editing in order to cool off. It's tough when you have strong opinions about something, but the best thing to do is to disengage when it gets to that point. I'm taking that approach myself and I'm not going to edit the Jeff Novitzky article again until the RfC comes to a conclusion.

On a general note, I'm concerned that your message on the talk page indicates you're already thinking about ArbCom. ArbCom really is the last resort in a dispute, and it doesn't seem to be pleasant for anyone involved! From that message and your most recent message here, I'm concerned that you may be worried that I and maybe other editors are disagreeing with you just to be disruptive, which is very much not the case. We have a genuine difference of opinion and I would like to get through that with the minimum disruption possible. I reported you to the edit warring noticeboard because that is what I would do for anyone who breaks 3RR, including myself, not because I think we can't come to a resolution on this - but I need you to meet me halfway.

Can we agree to let the RfC run its course, to let an uninvolved editor (i.e. not either of us) close it, and for neither of us to edit the article in the meantime?

Thanks, Marianna251TALK 11:22, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure we can do that, but I can't promise I won't be looking into Arbcom, as you reverted by edit without checking the talkpage and then got me involved edit war notice board. UserHerName (talk) 11:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @UserHerName: You would do well to stop issuing empty threats. In fact, you ought to consider taking a break from editing to cool off and rethink. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Stop these attempts at trying to bully me, it seems you've called your friends for backup, I will be making a note of all of this. UserHerName (talk) 11:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

SPI

Hi. I get the logic on that SPI, but I think it was too thin to claim DUCK. It is odd that a brand new user would choose to make that particular undo. Had the editor originally involved been blocked, I would have filed that SPI myself. But as the original editor accepted the eventual outcome and is not blocked, creating a sock to continue the behavior knowing how we'd respond would have caused more problem than solved. I try to remain careful in my accusations because I'm not a fan of eating my own words. I appreciate you keeping a lookout on this. Every countervandal needs to be willing to file at SPI, as you have. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I get that, but I've seen a couple of cases where someone's made promise X re: edit warring, kept arguing that other people should basically edit war for them, and when they don't get their way a sock shows up in an effort to avoid their main account getting blocked. (Which never works, but that doesn't stop people trying.) I wasn't 100% certain that was the case here, which is why I made a point in the report of saying that I know I'm close to this and may be seeing it wrong. Eh, it is what it is - personally, I'd rather check, but I know of a few other editors who disagree. If we were all the same it would be boring. :) Cheers, Marianna251TALK 16:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I have a couple admins I trust that I contact off-wiki now and then to ask about stuff like this. You might find that handy. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Good thought - I'll consider that in future. Marianna251TALK 19:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be Happy to Discuss Content

However, you are not. Please explain to me (as has yet to be done) why an un-cited source with bold claims get's preference over a cited source that is merely stating what something has the capability to do and not necessarily will do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I am very confused why a reference from noted Science Journals and University Textbooks is being excluded while an un-cited source making an attempt at factual claims is being allowed to remain while removing the request for a cited source. Can you please answer that for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.254.34 (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog has already explained this to you on your talk page, their talk page, and the article's talk page. Your source is not sufficient at the moment, your edit goes against the external links policy on several points, in light of the reliably sourced content already in the article it reads as flatly promotional, you're edit warring and you're making personal attacks. Quite frankly, other editors have been extremely patient with you, but I see no sign that you're actually trying to engage with others instead of berate them. You've also gone over WP:3RR despite multiple warnings. I suggest you stop editing the article and engage with Jytdog on the article's talk page. Marianna251TALK 19:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

With compliments :)

Fabiosmayra (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

List of Indias Largest trading Partmers

Pleae check the totals of the column Trade balance which is wrong from South korea Onwards.

Thank you.

It is highest minus the lowest . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.223.249 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@89.132.223.249: I'm not sure why you've left this comment for me? I have no interest in this article. If you think there is a mistake there, you are welcome to correct it yourself. You can also discuss with other interested editors on the article's talk page. Marianna251TALK 23:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Insult

Listen here woman. Your a Brit of Indian decent SERIUSLY INSULTING my nation. The Ntn Vietnamese cannot claim victory because their own casualty description is too high. Indeed they do not YOU have gravely insulted us. And we won't forget it. YOU never fought that war. How dare you. You low scum. How dare you insult us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.36.61 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2018

1) You introduced factual errors into an article, along with personal commentary and insults. This is not acceptable. Wikipedia operates a verifiability policy - you need reliable sources to back up your statements, and the reliable sources contradict your claim.

2) It is not an insult to any nation or its residents to state that they lost a particular battle. It is a matter of historical record. I've no idea why you think this is an insult of any kind.

3) Please do not insult or make personal attacks towards other editors. You've been blocked from editing for vandalising the Battle of Long Tan article, but your personal attacks may well have warranted a block of their own. Comment on content, not contributors - remember to assume good faith.

4) How is my nationality or ethnicity relevant? Also, where did you get the idea that I'm of Indian descent? My user page says I'm British, but nothing else, and I value my privacy too much to confirm or deny my ethnicity either way.

5) Please sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ or by pressing the button underneath the editing window. Marianna251TALK 17:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• G'day Marianna, regarding the above comment by IP 202. Please let me know if you would like this revdel'd and removed as personal attack per RD2. Also, please accept my apologies for you having to put up with such abuse. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@AustralianRupert: Thanks for the message! I'm okay with this remaining as it is - it's honestly small potatoes compared to some of the other responses I've had on Wikipedia (rape threats, death threats, sexual slurs, etc.) and it's such an overreaction that I find it kind of funny. I'll manually archive this discussion in a little bit, though, so it doesn't disrupt other editors coming to my talk page. Thanks again! Marianna251TALK 08:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits to the 2017 Madagascar plague outbreak

Marianna251, the reason for not having more about plague on this page is that there is a page on plague (in fact all three forms) that we can link to. Keeps the 2017 Madagascar plague outbreak article more concise and focused on this event. JuanTamad (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jtamad: I think you might have intended this message for someone else. My only edit to 2017 Madagascar plague outbreak was to revert this vandalism edit back in May. I have no other interest in the page. Marianna251TALK 12:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Marianna251, just a little message in order to thank you warmly for your edits at Babak Khorramdin, where you reverted a disruptive IP. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: No problem, happy to help. :) Marianna251TALK 00:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

AfD

Hi - Responding to your comment on the Alex Torpey talk page, of course you are correct that an AfD nomination isn't by default vandalism. However, this page was nominated by a new user who has only edited this particular page which represents a pattern similar to many in the past (if you look at the page history), which resulted in several years of protection by Wikipedia to prevent this, and thus, the AfD is a form of vandalism unless it's properly supported by a user that isn't likely the same user that was vandalizing both via IP and with new user accounts with similar usernames. That is why the user was warned, per Wiki guidelines, and the AfD was removed.

Hi again - I saw that the page was being discussed with all individuals participating the way I thought they were supposed to, which I missed somehow before (and presumed from the page history it was one more of the same from a pattern of problems with new users). I have added my comments to the appropriate place and apologize for the confusion.. Thank you! Nj098987 (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Nj098987: Hi! Thanks for your comment. I've looked at the page history, and the vandalism you're referring to occurred four years ago in 2014. The page was protected for six months at the end of 2014 until mid-2015, but regular vandalism did not resume afterwards. It has not seen a high level of vandalism for years, and never (so far as I could see) had a bad faith AfD nomination - prior to the AfD nomination yesterday, the page hadn't been edited at all since January 2018, let alone been regularly vandalised. Essentially, there is no pattern of vandalism on the page right now and hasn't been for years - there is no basis for any anti-vandalism action or warnings at this time. Please be careful when accusing others of vandalism and remember to assume good faith. Marianna251TALK 18:30, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Changes

Dear Marianna,

Could you change it for me, I saw my error and tried changing it, but it apparently won't let me.

Thanks!

Quinton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Corwinquinton (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Corwinquinton: Hi! Thanks for your message. I see that you're trying to add an edit saying that Michael J. Fox has died. However, the report of Fox's death is a hoax and should not be added to the article - reputable news outlets report that he's still alive. Your edit is still present in the history of the article and you can see it by clicking the "View history" link next to the "Edit" link.

On a general note, edits to Wikipedia need to be independently verifiable, which means they must be accompanied by a reliable source. This can be really confusing when you're new to Wikipedia, but the basic principle is that you have to prove everything you assert in an article. (Except for things that are completely uncontroversial - you don't need a source to say 1+1=2!) Reliable sources are basically anything that is fact-checked before it is published. This can cover published books, academic journals, reputable news agencies, etc. If you're in doubt about whether something is a reliable source, there are plenty of experienced editors you can ask for help at WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK. I'm happy to help if I can, but I'm not always around.

I hope this answers your question. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing!

(On a very quick final note - please could you sign your talk page messages by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature button underneath the editing window? This makes it much easier to tell who's left me which message. ) Marianna251TALK 23:46, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

What editor police decided this *wasn't* verifiable?

The article on San Francisco History has NOTHING on the Presidio. The Presidio was a post in the Spanish-American War and the Philippine American War. It was home to Buffalo Soldiers.[1]

I edited the article and the source cited was a government website.

This is verifiable.

Whomever is the Editorial Police around here perhaps should brush up on their San Francisco history. It's a gross oversight to have nothing on the Presido and its involvement as a Post during war.

The post referenced the National Park Service information on the Presidio.

As someone who volunteered an hour today to update this, I don't appreciate it being deleted.

Here's the link: https://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/spanish-american-war-a-splendid-little-war.htm

Writercal (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

https://www.nps.gov/prsf/learn/historyculture/spanish-american-war-a-splendid-little-war.htm

Hi, Writercal, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I reverted your addition to History of San Francisco for two reasons: firstly, because the vast majority of it was not attributed to any source, and secondly, because it was only tangentially relevant to the article. The article concerns history of San Francisco as a whole, of which the Presidio is only a small part, and its contribution to the wider view of SF's history is covered in the article. The Presidio has its own article where the kind of information you added would be more relevant.

However, having looked at your edit again, there is a much more serious issue, which is that it seems to have been completely copied and pasted from the source you gave. This violates copyright and could be considered is a form of plagiarism. I appreciate that you want to improve Wikipedia, which is always welcome, but edits must be in your own words and properly attributed to the original source.

If you have any other questions, I'm happy to help. Marianna251TALK 08:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've struck out the copyright violation part of my comment above because an admin with much more experience in copyright violations than me has clarified that the source is not under copyright. However, I've also made it clear that copying and pasting from the source is plagiarism and thus still not okay. Sorry for the confusion, Writercal, hope this clears things up a bit. Marianna251TALK 23:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Fighting against vandalism

Hi Mariana251, you said that you fight against vandalism. If you delete controvertial things, it's okay. But if you delete something because a group of vandals might vandalise, I think it's not okay. Enlighten me if I'm wrong. Sajal.hm (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Sajal.hm: Hi! Thanks for your comment. I take it you're referring to my revert of your edit to Bangladesh Chhatra League?

The reason I reverted your edit should be fairly clear - you added section headings to the article, but the sections didn't actually have any content. That's the main reason. There is no point to having headings in an article that don't actually have any content in them.

However, there is a bigger issue with a lot of the recent edits to the article, which also contributed to the revert. Two of the headings referred to "Terrorist activities" and "Leaders", which is not okay, in my opinion. There have been significant BLP issues on that article already with individuals who have not been convicted of any crime being named as perpetrators of violence. This is a serious WP:BLP violation. To quote WP:BLPCRIME, "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction."

The other concern is regarding the use of the word "terrorism". To quote WP:TERRORIST, "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." I also personally have doubts about whether the events reported meet the definition of terrorism - there are similarities, but I think if we're looking at definitions, "mob violence" or "riot" is more accurate based on the current information.

The events in Bangladesh are deeply reprehensible, no question about it. However, this is an ongoing event, which means that a) reports are likely to be confused, and b) editors to Wikipedia have an obligation not to make presumptions about guilt or motivation. All of the news reports I have seen have made it clear that they are reporting alleged events. That's not to say that those events didn't happen, but it is to say that this is and has been a very confusing and chaotic time. Judging by past cases, the exact details of events will likely not be proven for years to come, and serious miscarriages of justice can occur if rumour is presented as fact - Chris Jefferies is a famous case in point in the UK. He was arrested regarding the Murder of Joanna Yeates and was viciously vilified in the press for months, but he was not, in fact, her murderer, and that vilification had serious consequences for him. Maybe I'm interpreting the BLP policy too strictly, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

I hope that explains why I reverted your edit. If you have any other questions, I'm happy to help. Marianna251TALK 13:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be 100% clear - I don't regard anything you added to the article as vandalism. It was obviously meant it good faith. :) Marianna251TALK 15:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

We were both trying to undo the Mark Wahlberg page vandalism at the same time.

I was just about to remove the died part after I undid what someone else did, but you did it for me. You can see in the history I was not being malicious, the previous 4 edits to the page ended up breaking the page completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Witkowskipe (talk • contribs) 22:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Witkowskipe: Hi! Thanks for your comment - it looked to me like you were the IP, having registered a new account, trying to figure out how to properly add their edit to the page. Sorry for the confusion! Thanks for trying to fix the problem, it's really appreciated!

FYI, if there's more than one vandalism edit you want to revert, you can make the revert manually rather than undoing edits one at a time. On the page history, if you find the last non-vandalised version, click on the date and time and you'll get a permanent link to the page as it was at that point in time (e.g. [1]). It's not the greatest way to fix a page, but on the old version, you can click on "Edit source" and then save the page with an edit summary explaining that you're going back to an older version. That way you avoid accidentally re-including some vandalism while trying to remove other bits.

Again, my apologies for confusing you with the IP. I'll change the welcome message I left on your page to a much more relevant one. :) Marianna251TALK 22:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Marianna25: Yeah, I was not sure how to go 4 versions back...so I was going to revert the one that broke it completely and then remove the death hoax part after. I will use your method next time I try to fix something. I will also have to get used to this markup stuff.

@Witkowskipe: Wikipedia can be really confusing at first, yeah, especially if you're trying to learn the markup at the same time. I was lucky in that I'd edited some Wikia fansites before moving to Wikipedia, and they use the same coding. WP:CHEATSHEET covers the basics of wiki markup, and if you have any further questions the WP:HELPDESK exists for queries on how to use or edit Wikipedia. The WP:TEAHOUSE is another useful venue for ... pretty much any other kind of query. I'm happy to help, too, but I'm not always about.

One quick thing - could you sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~ or clicking the signature link underneath the editing window? That helps avoid confusion on talk pages about who said what and when on talk pages (obviously you don't need to sign edits within an article). Hope that helps, and happy editing! Marianna251TALK 23:34, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Witkowskipe: I'll do that. Witkowskipe (talk) 23:42, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Hey, Thank you for your advise and suggestions ! Keep supporting me Darsana.vinod (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Marianna251. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy (belated) New Year!

Happy New Year!

Hello Marianna251: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a great New Year! Cheers, JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 09:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year snowman}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hope you won't mind my belated message! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 09:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

My article on the Presidio

It is not up to *you* to decide to delete the hour or so time I spent on the Presidio. Who do you think you are? It was ALL verifiable and sourced. You are obviously someone on a power trip. I am a professional researcher and a Professor.

I hope you enjoy it when I blast this all over social media that you deleted my work because, perhaps, you don't want anything on Buffalo Soldiers?

Maybe you are against African Americans and are white-washing history?

Maybe you should put my edits back and think TWICE before you happily and gleefully like some Nazi go around deleting people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writercal (talk • contribs) 11:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Writercal: Thank you for your adolescent rage. I thrive upon this. Please realize that Marianna is not an admin and does not have the ability to "delete" anything, so you might explain what exactly you thought was done. Further, you can claim that you are "a professional researcher and a Professor" online just like I can claim to be Her Majesty Anne of Cleves and we shall not be addressed in this manner. Sadly, academics don't get privileged status on this website because it's run by many basement-dwelling underemployed AnCaps that want egalitarian and anarchic structure. If you want to lord it over someone, get back to your classroom. I want to be clear that some of what you said sounds like a personal attack, which is prohibited. We will think nothing of having you blocked, so ask yourself if it makes sense to antagonize volunteers at a website. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@Writercal: Oh, you're mad this got reverted? Discuss your edits on the article's talk page. That content isn't deleted as it's saved in the page's history tab and you need to gain consensus. This is a collaborative project. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Writercal: I have left a response on your talk page. This is the second time you have come to my talk page and left unwarranted personal attacks. Please do not comment on my talk page again - any future comments from you here will be reverted immediately and without discussion. Marianna251TALK 07:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the spirit!

You reverted your welcome. You're quickly becoming my favorite Wikipedian. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Your Message

IT WAS NOT ME!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.221.41 (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) Marianna left that warning almost three years ago. It probably was not you, but someone using your IP at that time. This is why we recommend editors register an account rather than edit from IP. Don't worry about it. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the Buckethead show AfD

Hi there,

Since it closed I just wanted to clarify my reply to Chris.

We agreed that it didn't meet GNG, my rebuttal was him wanting a straight delete was a redirect. Wikipedia:Redirects are costly, in its nutshell summary at the top, states "Wikipedia has a very good search facility." (so the content in another article will crop up without the need for a redirect) - this is definitely not the case.

Nate's reasoning had a better basis - I wasn't sure if I agreed with it, but certainly a good case could be made for it.

Apologies for discussing a finished AfD, but didn't want to seem rude for leaving a question hanging - was travelling so didn't get a chance to see it.

Have a good day :)

Nosebagbear (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: That makes more sense to me now! I was looking at the wrong thing - I assumed you were referring to an edit summary, so I was looking in the page history, not on the Wiki essay.

Thanks for taking the time to leave me a message. I really appreciate it. Hope you have a good day too. :) Marianna251TALK 14:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (by talk reader) @Nosebagbear: Redirects are often hijacked as many are unwatched and patrollers are already very busy. (if redirects must exist, they probably ought to be semi-protected.) If Buckethead show is not, itself, notable then content about the show could be included in your intended redirect target, which readers would likely find in a search. Is this not so? Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit on Ian Blackford's page

Hi Marianna!

I don't quite know how to use Wikipedia, but I do know that CSM (or Corbion, as it is now called) is most certainly not a banking products company, but (at least originally) a baking products company. See the about page on their website: http://www.corbion.com/about-corbion, or, indeed, the Wikipedia page that CSM links to right behind the edit I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbion.

I realise the edit may have appeared silly and/or slightly less spectacular than the original text, but the edit was serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordi3838 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jordi3838: Hi! Sorry for the late response - I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you for clarifying that; you're right that I thought the IP's edit was a deliberately silly change, which is why I reverted it. It looks like someone else has corrected the article in my absence.

I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the ref tags from your comment. Ref tags generate a list at the bottom of a page by default, which makes it a bit confusing on talk pages. Thanks again for alerting me to the mistake! Marianna251TALK 22:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific

Hi Marianna,

I have just noted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Science&oldid=827976332 in which you write ""Pseudoscientific" is a factual description."

It is true that it is a factual description, but the point is that its insertion in this article is POV (Point of View). Who has proven Intelligent Design is pseudoscientific?

There are three professors in scientific disciplines (Thermodynamics, Engineering Design and Micro and Nano Technology) in three UK Universities (Leeds, Bristol and Liverpool) on the Board of Directors and Council of Reference. I agree with whoever removed the word "pseudoscientific" and I will appreciate it if you would reconsider and remove it. Ergateesuk (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ergateesuk: Uh, no. Intelligent design is pseudoscientific and has been repeatedly proven to be so; see Intelligent_design#Scientific_criticism for wikipedia's summary of the evidence.

However, even if I agreed with you that intelligent design has not been conclusively proven to be pseudoscience at best (which I don't, because it is), the majority of reliable sources about Truth in Science describe their material/agenda as non-scientific, pseudoscientific, even just superstition. Our opinions are irrelevant: if the sources say X, Wikipedia says X. You can start a discussion on Talk:Truth in Science to try to gain a consensus for a change if you want, but so many reliable sources say the opposite of what you want to say that I really don't think you'd be successful. Marianna251TALK 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Nilsen

Nilsen was of course Scottish by birth, but his crimes were committed in London. Therefore, wouldn't a description of British be more appropriate? Many articles on offenders of this nature in America describe the offender as American rather than Texan etc.Kieronoldham (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: Thanks for the message! There is a distinct difference between the parts of the United Kingdom and states in the USA, however. Describing a Texan as an American has a better analogy with describing a Glaswegian (someone from Glasgow) as Scottish. If you call a Texan an American, you're not likely to get thumped in the face the way that you might if you told the wrong Scottish person that they're British.

UK nationalities are very complicated even to someone born and raised in them, like I was. The key difference is to remember that England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were all independent countries and have only relatively recently formed a union. Texas was never its own country; Scotland was, up until only a few hundred years ago. When it comes to people from the UK, it's best to reflect either the way they describe themselves or the way the sources describe them. The sources on Nilsen almost all describe him as Scottish. Hope that helps. Marianna251TALK 20:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, just found the Wiki page WP:UKNATIONALS - it gives an overview of just how complicated UK nationality is and has been historically. See also the UK government's list of ethnic categories. Marianna251TALK 20:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Marianna251. Argh. Was sat on the fence and could see merit in either description being the better one. I know most of the sources describe him as Scottish (I largely populated the article). Off-topic to a degree, but I have Scottish in-laws and have visited Scotland frequently in my lifetime. For the most part, they have a better sense of nationalism than most English people. I learned quickly not to talk loudly on buses and trains due to the glares I sometimes received - especially at Inverkeithing .--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)