User talk:Marianna251

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}}.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

BOAC Flight 777

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]

Bo'ness United F.C.

I am trying to fix fix it !!! Bonessunited12345 (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you're vandalising. Marianna251TALK 14:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All blocked (I think). Page protected for 3 months. It was a bit of of an onslaught, been years since I saw an attack like that! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for doing all those blocks and for the page protection! I was hoping the vandalism would calm down after the two accounts that were vandalising yesterday got blocked, but nope, my luck's not that good.

Marianna251TALK 23:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It never works that way. I remember a terrible night using Huggle many years ago (pre-admin), and could not press "Q" fast enough - there must have been 6-8 different people all attacking a page at once, I thought an admin would never come along...! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling salesman problem, -ise suffix

Hello, Marianna! I have noticed your edit to Travelling salesman problem directly after mine, in which you changed -ize into -ise. This is of course correct for British English, but please note that -ize is also correct (see Oxford spelling). The spelling of that article was prodominantly British, but it used many instances of the -ize suffix. Therefore I chose Oxford spelling for copy-editing the article. Since there is no close tie of the topic to the UK or Australia and since it's an academic topic, I think Oxford spelling is a good choice. Acopyeditor (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Acopyeditor: Hi! I honestly did not know that Oxford English used the -ize suffix, apologies. It does seem bizarre to me, but then a lot of what Oxford does is bizarre... If you want to revert my edit back to yours, I have no objection.

Marianna251TALK 15:56, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will change it back to -ize. It's not just Oxford University Press, but many other publishers as well. And according to that Wikipedia article, Shakespeare used -ize. :) Acopyeditor (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not in common use in the UK, which is what I found confusing in an article that otherwise uses British English, although I understand the rationale for using Oxford English for a non-national academic topic. Aside from OED, though, it looks like only three other non-US English publishers use -ize, and then only in dictionaries alongside -ise spellings, so I'd watch out for more changes from -ize to -ise on that article simply because it's so odd to see. On the topic of Shakespeare, he lived in an era where standardised spelling was only just beginning to be considered necessary and never wrote his own name the same way twice, so he's an example of many things, but consistent spelling is not one of them. :) Marianna251TALK 21:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cronin

I have added a note to the talk page indicating the source of information on his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.34.170 (talk) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Wikipedia is prone to vandals attempting to hoax deaths, so having a reliable source is important. I'm guessing that your source is not in the public domain? Marianna251TALK 20:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colour/color

hi, i changed "coulour ;)" to "color" in the elements of art, because it just seemed like someone was being a jerk about the spelling to have a laugh. why else would he have put a ";)" face on it? i take the elements of art seriously, and thusly changed it and reflected the spelling throughout for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.24.82.77 (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, I noticed that you changed the vandal edit, but you also amended "colour" to "color" on far more words. Elements of art is not a subject aligned to any particular nationality, so it's good practice to retain the regional variety of English used to write the article. That's why I reverted your edit. Marianna251TALK 20:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

I have granted the "rollbacker" permission to your account. After a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, contact me and I will remove it. Good luck and thanks. Widr (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Widr: Hi! Wow, I wasn't expecting that, but I really appreciate the vote of confidence. Thank you very much!

Marianna251TALK 19:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I'm sure you will find it useful when dealing with blatant vandalism. Widr (talk) 19:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Just because :)

TonyKWiki (talk) 23:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyKWiki: Aw, kitty! Awesome! You still need to stop removing speedy deletion templates, though. If you disagree with the nomination, contest it on the talk page.

Marianna251TALK 23:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Politician Editing

Hello! I'm trying to add factual information to Jennifer Sullivan's page but keep getting my info deleted. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.94.143 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Your edits seemed less than neutral to me, contravening Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, so I removed them. If you can provide a reliable source, such as a mainstream news outlet, then I'd be happy for you to re-add the edit. Your second attempt had much better wording, so I'd go with that. Let me know if you have any more questions! Marianna251TALK 18:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick The Great

I think you made a mistake with your reversal of my edit, for which I see no justification. Please reconsider. 177.98.27.172 (talk) 16:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation should be used for the defining characteristics of the subject of an article only, in order to avoid overcategorisation. Frederick the Great's sexuality is far from the most notable or defining aspect of his person, which is why it was removed the first time you added it and why I removed it the second time. If you think these should be added, you are welcome to create a discussion on the article's talk page. Please don't re-insert the edit again without gaining consensus since you may end up in danger of a block for edit warring. Marianna251TALK 17:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The entry itself cites a host of biographers who say of Frederick's sexuality that it "was central to his life and character", and I don't know what authority you have to contradict them. Frederick is also included in no less than four categories used for musicians, even though his flute playing was but a hobby and by no means what he's most notable about. If you're so concerned about overcategorization, why don't you go remove those four categories, instead of getting so red and mad about a couple LGBT ones? 177.98.27.172 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please remember to be civil and assume good faith when interacting with other editors. Edits made by other people are pretty much irrelevant, since we're talking about your edit, not anyone else's. I'm glad that you want to improve Wikipedia, so if you really feel it's important to have those categories on the page, please start a discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus before making any further edits. Marianna251TALK 18:36, 31 August 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]

Phage therapy

Sorry for that! I was working on the translation of the article and i posted it in the main page instead of my sandbox Edgarbl3 (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edgarbl3: No problem! I thought something like that might have happened.

Marianna251TALK 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My changes

You have said my changes were one-sided, but the entire entry in one-sided. I am one of the attorneys for the Legal Alliance to Stop Geoengineering and its a fact that we have the scientific data to support our claims. Not only that CIA Director Brennan and several professors come out and admitted to geoengineering. We have filed a 60-day notice under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Those links can be found on http://www.stopgeoengineeringlegalalliance.com

Without mention of these things (facts) Wikipedia is very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby24601 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I can see that you feel very strongly about this, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means there are certain things that it is not. Any edits need to have reliable, published sources, be worded neutrally, and must not contain original research. The conflict of interest policy also strongly discourages editing articles that you are personally involved in. I've added a welcome template to your talk page with helpful links to get you started - I recommend reading WP:RELIABLE, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to start with.

If you have any questions, you can add the {{helpme}} template to your user talk page along with the question. An experienced editor will then reply directly on your talk page. Hope this helps! Marianna251TALK 17:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand how you could not mention the 60-day notice I mentioned in my edits. That is factual. Please explain. Bobby24601 (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. The problem is that the 60-day notice is completely and utterly irrelevant to the reason I reverted your edit. These are the important points:

Edits on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means they need reliable, published sources - which you didn't provide.
Edits must not contain original research - which your edit was since you've said it comes from your personal experience.
Edits must be neutral - if the original article is leaning in one direction, tipping it the other way doesn't make it neutral.
You have a conflict of interest when it comes to the California drought manipulation conspiracy theory article - which means you are strongly discouraged from editing that article at all.

I don't want to seem harsh or make it sound like your desire to improve Wikipedia isn't appreciated, because it most definitely is. However, you need to be clear that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or a soapbox/means of promotion. If you're here to promote your cause, you're in the wrong place. That's not a comment on your cause itself; simply that Wikipedia is not the place for it. I hope that's clear. Marianna251TALK 01:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting a Page

Hi Marianna,

Thank you so much for your feedback on the IAVA page earlier. Do you have any tips on how to protect a page from vandalism? I'm trying to do that for the IAVA page now, but I can't figure it out. Thanks! :)

Best, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeLincoln (talk • contribs) 22:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi JoeLincoln, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is the place you're looking for. However, it should be noted that pages are normally only protected in cases of significantly high amounts of vandalism or other such forms of disruptive editing (see also Wikipedia:Protection policy). Looking through the history of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, I only noticed maybe two or three anon edits that could be considered vandalism within the past week. You could request the page be semi-protected now but your request may be declined. I would wait first, and if the vandalism gets worse later on, request it be semi-protected at WP:RFPP. Sro23 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) Well, let's be clear. JoeLincoln is a single-purpose account and it doesn't take much sleuthing to surmise there's a conflict of interest. Joe/Edgar would do well to leave the article alone before Wikipedia takes action. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:28, 1 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]

Why are you deleting important information on Kurdish Cinema?

Why are you deleting important information on Kurdish Cinema without giving reason and reporting users who contribute to Kurdish Cinema? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurdoKardir (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting pages and reporting without giving reasons

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did many changes without giving reason at User:KurdoKardi and his/her post, deleted important information on Kurdish CInema. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you