Jump to content

User talk:Marianna251: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Reverted to revision 742220842 by Marianna251 (talk): Rvv. (TW)
Re: Benhams top: new section
Line 120: Line 120:


:If you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to make comments about any supposed "obsessions" a non-homogeneous group of independent editors may or may not have, then you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that your edit was not appropriate and constituted vandalism. Also, I'm not sure why you removed your signature, but I've re-added it for you in the appropriate place. [[User:Marianna251|<b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b>]][[User talk:Marianna251|<b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b>]] 11:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
:If you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to make comments about any supposed "obsessions" a non-homogeneous group of independent editors may or may not have, then you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that your edit was not appropriate and constituted vandalism. Also, I'm not sure why you removed your signature, but I've re-added it for you in the appropriate place. [[User:Marianna251|<b style="border:1px solid #613B3B; color:#FFF; background-color:#B38989; padding: 0px 2px;">Marianna251</b>]][[User talk:Marianna251|<b style="padding:2px; font-size:80%;">TALK</b>]] 11:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

== Re: Benhams top ==

Do you sit trawling the net looking for other people's work so that you can delete it?

Why you cannot see my edit as constructive is beyond me. With this in mind I challenge your suitability to "Combat vandalism". I accuse you of ''vandalism'' by editing my addition to the page. My 14 year old grandson has read the page with my edit and said it was the only paragraph where he could read more than three words without coming across a word he did not understand. If you are comfortable to merely satisfy your sensibilities and collude with those that are unconcerned with the exclusive nature of using "big words" then I further challenge your suitability to moderate Wikipedia.

I just think you didn't like the way I wrote it, in a way my Grandson would understand it.

Very disappointed in your abuse of your position. I will take this further if you do not replace my edit immediately. What is it to you that I wrote something the way I see it? It is not a million miles away from what Hitler tried to do. [[User:Cephlopoid|Cephlopoid]] ([[User talk:Cephlopoid|talk]]) 10:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:51, 3 October 2016

Welcome to my talk page!
Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
  • You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Marianna251TALK 20:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines from {{Template:User talk top}}.

Why did you remove my edit to this page regarding the history of the plane? It was not already in the air as the article states. It was on the ground and survived the attack and escaped after the invasion. This is researched and is from Ian Colvin's book and I did cite my source. I am fairly new to Wiki and hope I am doing this correctly. By the way, I never got any notice from you that you were doing this. Naj619 (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Naj619: I did not revert any of your edits; I reverted edits after yours, by IP 78.250.20.69. Your edits are still in the article. Marianna251TALK 21:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your response. I misread. My apologies. Like I said, I am new at this. I see the note I put on the page. I should have taken more time to look at what was there. Thanks again for your responseNaj619 (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Naj619: No problem - it's easy to get confused when you're dealing with a new system. If you want to double-check what another editor has done on a wikipedia page, you can select two revision on the "View history" page and press the button marked "Compare selected revisions". That will take you to a screen that highlights the exact changes made in that edit. Deleted portions will be in yellow/orange on the left side, while new additions will be in blue on the right. Hope that helps! Marianna251TALK 15:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marianna251: Thank you.Naj619 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opalescence

Hi! I corrected a spelling error on the Opalescence page, changing 'Iridiscence' to 'Iridescence' in the 'See Also' section and it was reversed 94.7.164.135 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You also inserted "my butt" into the article. Correcting a spelling doesn't hide the vandalism edit you made at the same time. Marianna251TALK 19:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh god that was actually completely unintentional, I have a Chrome extension called Cloud-to-Butt and it changes instances of 'the cloud' to 'my butt' for comedic effect. I completely forgot about it and didn't realise it would affect wiki edits, my bad 94.1.133.23 (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the message you left here got caught by the same extension, so maybe turn it off when you're on Wikipedia in the future? No worries, though, it's easy to forget about browser add-ons you use all the time. I saw you made the spelling correction again (this time without any butts, lol), thank you! Marianna251TALK 21:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: September 2016

The name of the Countess of Iguaçu was Maria Isabel de Alcantara Brasileira, not Maria Isabel de Alcantara Bourbon, so my edit was legitimate. In the Portuguese Language wikipedia, her correct name is given. Also, she would never have the surname of the House of Bourbon. Her father was a member of the House of Braganza. He only had Bourbon in his name because his mother, Queen Carlota of Portugal, was a Spanish Princess from that House. Therefore, Bourbon is the surname of Maria Isabel's maternal grandmother's family. But all the children of Pedro I born out of wedlock (even those that he recognized) were given the surname Brasileiro (for male offspring) or Brasileira (for females). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.91.66.201 (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for the info. However, I reverted your edit because the source gives her last name as Bourbon, and you didn't provide a reliable source of your own. You're welcome to re-add the edit, but please make sure to include a source if you do so. Quick request - please sign your talk page messages with ~~~~. That makes it a lot easier to see who's left me what message. Marianna251TALK 20:02, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Louis's Wikipedia Page

Hello,

I was notified that you removed a number of changes made to Ari Louis's Wikipedia page. These changes have been approved by Louis himself, and I ask that they be reinstated. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.63.66 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were clearly vandalism. Even if they were not, they were neither neutral nor sourced and so would be removed anyway. Marianna251TALK 13:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trout? What trout?

The Civility Barnstar
For staying cool when slapped for no reason. Yintan  21:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Yintan: Aw, thank you! Your userpage is really funny, by the way. I love it. Marianna251TALK 21:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It would be a shame to waste so many interesting diffs. ;) Yintan  21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Garand

I'm sorry, I was mistaken, I thought it was called the M1 Grand. my apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.115.148.108 (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It was easily fixed. Thanks for the message. Marianna251TALK 21:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello. I do apologize for my Bangkok page editing. I just want to make data up to date. Thanks for your suggestion. Next time I will leave comments or messages after I edit something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMFMan (talkcontribs) 09:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrMFMan: Hi! I'm glad you found the advice useful. It's generally good practice to use edit summaries, but especially when you're removing content, since Wikipedia gets vandals who will delete content for the heck of it. Leaving an edit summary avoids confusion. One quick last thing - could you sign talk page posts with ~~~~? That adds your signature and makes it clear who's left which message. Thanks again! Marianna251TALK 09:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blindspot

I was not trying to vandelize Wikipedia. I was trying to add some informations but apparently I can't. I tried to add a source but it was delete. I understand there are some rules or stuff like that but that's no a reason for threatening to block me or not to be polite with me. You can tell me what's wrong nicely. I'm not stupid, I'm not mean, I'd understand. I don't want to "disrupted" people who contribute to Wikipedia. I just want to help them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.56.10.73 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@81.53.10.73: The message I left on your talk page was a standard template available for use to all Wikipedia editors. It was harsher than the preceding messages precisely because you'd already received two previous warnings for editing problems. I appreciate your attempt to provide a source, but you clearly didn't read the reliable sources policy as you'd been advised, because the source you gave was a forum message and therefore not appropriate. I'm really glad that you want to improve Wikipedia, but at the moment your edits are disruptive.
Right now, the best thing to do is to read through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's a lot there, but it's there for a reason! If you want to make an edit but you're not sure if it's okay, you can add a message to the article's talk page asking for other editors to comment. Hope that helps. Marianna251TALK 09:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Thank you Marianna251. I genuinely feel the page should not be deleted. When the AFD tags would be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anc2017 (talkcontribs) 12:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Are you a bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.35.254 (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. Marianna251TALK 16:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your Edit

Wikipedia is well known for its obsession for identifying and categorizing Jews. After all, one of its founders, Jimmy Wales, is a Jew. I'm just trying to do my part. Why did you revert my contribution? 65.129.210.124 (talk) 11:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to make comments about any supposed "obsessions" a non-homogeneous group of independent editors may or may not have, then you're familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that your edit was not appropriate and constituted vandalism. Also, I'm not sure why you removed your signature, but I've re-added it for you in the appropriate place. Marianna251TALK 11:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Benhams top

Do you sit trawling the net looking for other people's work so that you can delete it?

Why you cannot see my edit as constructive is beyond me. With this in mind I challenge your suitability to "Combat vandalism". I accuse you of vandalism by editing my addition to the page. My 14 year old grandson has read the page with my edit and said it was the only paragraph where he could read more than three words without coming across a word he did not understand. If you are comfortable to merely satisfy your sensibilities and collude with those that are unconcerned with the exclusive nature of using "big words" then I further challenge your suitability to moderate Wikipedia.

I just think you didn't like the way I wrote it, in a way my Grandson would understand it.

Very disappointed in your abuse of your position. I will take this further if you do not replace my edit immediately. What is it to you that I wrote something the way I see it? It is not a million miles away from what Hitler tried to do. Cephlopoid (talk) 10:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]