User talk:Marianna251/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Bo'ness United F.C.

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

A kitten for you!

Just because :)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Edgarbl3: No problem! I thought something like that might have happened. Marianna251TALK 17:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

(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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. Edits on Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means they need reliable, published sources - which you didn't provide.
2. Edits must not contain original research - which your edit was since you've said it comes from your personal experience.
3. Edits must be neutral - if the original article is leaning in one direction, tipping it the other way doesn't make it neutral.
4. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@Marianna251: Thank you.Naj619 (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Trout? What trout?

		The Civility Barnstar
		For staying cool when slapped for no reason. Yintan  21:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Yintan: Aw, thank you! Your userpage is really funny, by the way. I love it. Marianna251TALK 21:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It would be a shame to waste so many interesting diffs. ;) Yintan  21:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@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)

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)

@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)

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 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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)

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)

Eddie Gil Article

We knew the guy personally and we are furious about your article. How's this: we edit the article, truth about his case and you never have to edit it again. The Supreme Court of Mauritius dismissed the case against Mr. Gil and he won regarding fraud a long time ago. He was falsely accused. So where is your source coming from? The newspaper and media? Come on. I'm going to post the article showing he already won the case. So please no further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAbrenica (talk • contribs) 13:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @IvanAbrenica: Let me set you straight. Neither you nor anyone owns any article on Wikipedia. Your suggestion of "no further editing" is not only unenforceable it may lead you to a swift block. Do not tell established editors what to do especially considering you're only here to push a point of view. I do not want to hear from you further on this issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant Information

Hi Marianna251

I deleted the article regarding issues about the Mauritius case. I represent Eduardo Gil, as he was my family's friend. He requested all articles regarding his case to be deleted as this was irrelevant. He won the case and we have proof to show you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvanAbrenica (talk • contribs) 11:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I understand your perspective; however, the information you deleted was notable and sourced. You can add information about the case you won if you feel it appropriate - although you should read the conflict of interest policy first - but please note that Wikipedia is not censored and I see no valid reason to remove the information regarding Gil's arrest and subsequent imprisonment.

I've seen that you've re-removed the content three times now. This means you're in danger of breaching Wikipedia's edit warring policy and the three revert rule. I strongly advise you not to make any more edits to the page without discussing it on the article's talk page first, as breaching 3RR can lead to you being blocked from editing. I hope this helps. Marianna251TALK 11:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI, IvanAbrenica threatened to sue me over this over on my talkpage. I'm ignoring it for now, but if it's repeated we should probably act on WP:NLT. FalconK (talk) 13:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Falcon Kirtaran: Thanks for the heads up! It's gone to the edit warring noticeboard now, so we'll see what comes out of that. Marianna251TALK 15:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Brian Welsh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brian_Welsh

The reasons for removal have been previously discussed in the link above, this is from 2010. Dufc6 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Dufc6: For what it's worth the 2010 discussion mentioned does not express a consensus to remove. The deletion was pushed by people who probably have a conflict of interest and by other editors who don't know what tabloid format is. I think I'd be ok with the deletion per WP:UNDUE but you need to make an actual argument and use appropriate edit summaries. Then again, you're not here to contribute so I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know what you're doing. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Heres Some Strawberries Ewan haqeem (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

For stopping the crazy boob pun makers on holly boughbry also my signature isn't working for some reason working — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla, the remover (talk • contribs) 12:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Layla, the remover: No problem! I haven't stopped anything, though - I've just been reverting edits and keeping an eye on the page. I've made a request to have the page protected but it's still pending. Thanks for your help on Willow (film)! Marianna251TALK 12:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Widr (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, thank you! Another surprise rights change. I'll read through the links. :) Marianna251TALK 21:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you didn't ask for this one either, but you deserve it. It should help you with your excellent anti-vandalism efforts. Keep it up! Widr (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello there

Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&diff=747513940&oldid=747512503 and edits after this. For the lead https://i.imgsafe.org/8d1e1752c8.jpg, the rest is just keeping it as it was. There is no original research there. The edits after version 747512503 is consistent with wp:promotional many of the new links are there to promote the idea physicist are also engineers. But the links that have engineer word is associated with research areas where a physicist can work. If you think I am missing something with this judgement kindly do notify.117.213.19.216 (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The primary issue at this point is that you are edit warring to restore your preferred version of the page. The version you are restoring actually has fewer reliable sources, has more spelling and grammar errors, and includes some incredibly contentious statements such as "Physics is a liberal arts education for a technological society said Joseph Pimbley through Physics Today" (which is also an example of the terrible grammar). The version you're removing does not actually come across to me as promotional in any way; WP:PROMOTIONAL refers to linkspam and/or advertising for a specific business. Stating that a physicist can be an engineer is not promotional, particularly given that it's supported by sources from the American Institute of Physicists.

This is very much a content dispute, not an uncontroversial reversion of promotional material. Instead of repeatedly reverting to your preferred version of the page, please discuss potential changes on the article's talk page. Marianna251TALK 20:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We might not be on the same page of seeing the problem. I reverted to the said version after checking them and added back links which showed relevance, this is identifiable. Would you be open to "Physics is a liberal arts education compared to technology related fields". I find the engineering inject to be an opinion piece to advocate pet point of view (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion) plus as I said before the links that have engineer word is associated with research areas where a physicist can work so taking an affirmative stand physicist are also engineers is misleading at best. Plus traditional physics degrees doesn't have an engineering angle for physics graduates to be called as an engineer. Degrees earned through Faculty of Engineering like Engineering Physics http://careers.queensu.ca/sites/webpublish.queensu.ca.cswww/files/files/Major%20Maps/2015/Engineering%20Physics%20WEB.pdf could be called as an engineer but never as a physicist or there should be clear sources to clear that up without putting engineering here and there in the article. Profiles shown in APS also confirms that Physicists who work in engineering divisions are PhD scholars or Post Docs with interdisciplinary (not related to physics) continuing education but this couldn't be added directly without a source due to possible original research tagging. This is why I consider this (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&oldid=7475154200) to be a non-promotional reversion till ample sources are there to prove it otherwise. The list of careers were also linked why remove those references and revert to a list with areas that have no relation or added without reference after ClueBot NG revert of vandalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Physicist&oldid=725617567)....Also I like to know about the lead based on this https://i.imgsafe.org/8d1e1752c8.jpg, it was changed as per your previous suggestion. Even though the page is blocked (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=747512804&oldid=747512647) while we were discussing I would like to see the reply.

I've added a new section to the article's talk page, since that seems to be the better venue for this discussion. Please take a look, and remember to sign your talk page comments with ~~~~. Thank you!

@217.151.98.14: The other IP has accepted your changes, so I haven't warned you for this, but please be aware that refactoring other users' talk page comments is considered to be very bad form and should be avoided at all costs. WP:TPO gives more info. Please don't do this again as it can be construed as malicious, even if that's not your intention, and lead to you being blocked from editing. Marianna251TALK 22:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

IP vandal

Thanks for putting in the vandalism complaint just now (I thought I had done it but not realised I was submitting at the same time as someone else, so didnt go through...). I doubt this is the end of it, given the ban earlier this year but maybe it'll sink in this time. Thankfully there were a fair few of us keeping an eye out on their actions to keep reverting it. Jkmaskell (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I do recent changes anti-vandalism patrol, so I'm not even sure which page you're referring to, but I'm glad I helped. :) Marianna251TALK 16:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

the page was created by me on wiki Charvi Saraf

mentioned article was made by me and now I dont want it on wikipedia please help me in deleting it

@Akshayzine13: Normally, nominating the article for deletion and creating the deletion discussion - as you have done - would be what you need to do. Anyone can object to the deletion, however, and the community may decide to keep the page. Simply creating the article does not mean that you own it.

However, I've double-checked the page's history, and if you really want it deleted then it looks like you can request a G7 speedy deletion. This is where the article's creator (you) is the only one to have made substantial contributions to the page and you request its deletion (see WP:G7). In that case, you would be able to blank the page without it being vandalism. The way to do this is to put {{db-g7}} at the top of the page.

One last thing - could you sign your talk page comments with ~~~~? This makes it easier to see who's left a message. Thanks! Marianna251TALK 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

thank you

hey Thank you for being so nice for my mistake :) whenever I'll need help i will contact you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshayzine13 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem! Glad we got that sorted out. :) Marianna251TALK 17:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

hey thank for helping me in :) really appreciated Akshayzine13 (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

some help

I'm new to Wikipedia and know only few basic things like creating articles and citation adding pictures and some of

also have some idea of citation that its only needed for keeping article safe and visible :)

can you please give me some tips that whenever I'll create new article it will help me in :)

have some plan to create an articles for media website companies and some of bollywood Indian celebs those who dont have yet

I really need some suggestions and tips

also how can I fix article if it is semi protected becuase one article is semi protected and the person who's wiki is that she want her wikipedia to be updated with her new tv shows and many... i tried and I edited but it got revert to the previous one

please help

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshayzine13 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Akshayzine13: Hi again! For new articles, the article wizard gives you a helpful walkthrough. Before you do anything else, though, you should read what Wikipedia is not, particularly that Wikipedia is not for promotion, and the conflict of interest guidelines.

The semi-protected article you mentioned is an example of a conflict of interest. Basically, if you're editing a page concerning someone you know or something else you have a relationship with, then you have a conflict of interest, and it's best not to edit those pages at all. The problem is that a lot of COI edits will not be appropriate for Wikipedia and therefore will be reverted. If you're sure an edit is appropriate, then the edit requests page tells you how to ask for an edit. You should also take note of the notability guidelines - if you create an article doesn't meet them, then it's highly likely that it will be deleted.

For general advice, it looks like Church left you a welcome message on your talk page with some very useful links. The best advice I can give you is to stop editing for now, read through those links and the ones I've given here, and make sure that the edits you want to make actually conform to Wikipedia's policies. If they don't conform, they will always be removed. Hope this helps. Marianna251TALK 18:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Love what you're doing

I'm impressed with the hate you've been getting; it's indicative of your effectiveness on wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I used to work in part of the criminal justice system, and every time a criminal made a complaint, the person they were complaining about got a metaphorical gold star from management for doing their job well. Thank you! Marianna251TALK 21:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

More beer

Less talk, more synthohol! Less beer, more editing? More editing, more beer....that's it  ;) ---- I edited this article based one what seems to be the opinions of the two editors I could identify, you and me. Feel free to double check to see if its on the right track, its a rough edit. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Looks so much better! I noticed a duplicate ref so I changed that, but otherwise it looks like all the major problems have been sorted. Thanks for doing all that - real life has been kicking my butt lately, sapping my motivation to deal with ... anything. Glad you were on top of it. :) Marianna251TALK 13:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Joel Segal page

The edits done on Joel Segal page have been done due to finding conflicting sources and unverifiable/subjective language. Please revert to my last changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klismo (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Klismo: You've removed vast swathes of content supported by reliable sources from the page and replaced it with "USA TODAY". This is pretty blatant vandalism. Marianna251TALK 20:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

- The USA TODAY thing I think was left behind from using WYSIWYG editor. Information removed is information I originally added and I've come to find that it's not good information directly from the person the page is literally about. I understand why it might look like vandalism, but I assure you it is not.. There are simply real life ramifications to my hastily adding incorrect information to the page in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klismo (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

- At this point I legit would be okay with having my account suspended/deleted/banned/placed on watch to have my edits put in. I am by no means a vandal and sincerely implore you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klismo (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @Klismo: Please understand that you removed content cited to deadspin.com, gq.com, and businessinsider.com, among others. If you think their reportage is wrong you need to visit WP:RSN or discuss your issues on the talk page. You don't have consensus for your edits and you've already been reverted multiple times. You can be blocked if you continue this bad behavior. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

- @Chris troutman: I'm not trying to be blocked and "continue this bad behavior" is a little over the top as that all happened in the span of a couple minutes and I haven't tried again. Is there a non-public place that I can explain my reasons for these edits? If so, the issue is pretty important and I would like to explain myself in a way that others can't see.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Marianna251. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Gibran Noorani Close discussion for deletion

Can we remove article deletion notice from the page ??

or please let me know how can I make the article more strong article was made for informational purpose as his movie is coming... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshayzine13 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Akshayzine13: Apologies for the delayed response! It looks like the AfD discussion has finished with a consensus to delete the article, so this is kind of moot, but I'll do my best to answer anyway.

AfD discussions last 7 days, apart from some very rare exceptions, and since you're an involved party as the creator of the page you can't close the discussion yourself. You have to let the community decide whether or not to keep the article. You can keep editing it in the meantime, but - as I said in our previous conversation, if the subject of the article fails the notability guidelines, then it will likely be deleted. It looks like that's what happened here. Marianna251TALK 11:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Murat Gigin

The page has been deleted already 7 times tr:Murat Gigin, so no, we don't want it here.Xx236 (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: Thanks for the info. I don't read Turkish (I relied on Google Translate to tell me what language the article is in), so I didn't know what the article was about. From your comments on the creator's talk page, I'm guessing it's an autobiography? Marianna251TALK 13:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thanks for your information — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshayzine13 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Change in the title of Mar Thoma

The title given to the Mar Thoma Metropolitan is a misleading one given the fact that "His Beatitude" represents a bishop who is subordinate to a higher authority. The said title was never given to the Mar Thoma metropolitan and the correct title would be "His Grace". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinsen John (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

sorry.

sorry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elig1234 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Another IP at Physicist

I noticed another IP hopper has started, same one who was modifying talk on your talk page a while back. I can not keep these hoppers strait so WP:BRD the edits since they are not joining consensus. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm pretty sure this IP is distinct from the Kerala IP and the Irish IP, since their WHOIS/Geolocate and writing style is different, not that it makes any difference when it comes to the consequences of disruption. (Why does this article attract so many weird IPs?) I'll keep an eye on the article via my watchlist. Marianna251TALK 11:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

And back again. The fact that this IP keeps adding the word "specialist" to the lead and reverting back in a section on "Physics vs. Engineering" shows this is the Kerala IP hopper per these edits 217.151.98.13, 217.151.98.14, 117.213.18.84, 59.96.166.198. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Opened an SPI. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Thanks for the note. I saw that the SPI didn't go anywhere, which is frustrating. Maybe LTA? Regardless, the page has been protected again, this time for a month, so I'm going to ignore the IP's quacking on the talk page. Ironically, they're quite right to cite WP:DENY. Marianna251TALK 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Marianna251: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Class455 (Merry Christmas!) 17:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Happy New Year, Marianna251!

Happy New Year!

Marianna251,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 18:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Please don't edit our town page

This is a tradition that we hold and it is all true. It is a yearly gag we hold at each Inauguration by announcing a different winner in the election and them lambasting them.

Come to Brewster on Inauguration day and you'll have a great laugh.

We then return it back to normal within a couple weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.20.18 (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is a tradition, then you can add details about the tradition to the page along with reliable source(s), instead of the hoax information. Adding hoax information to Wikipedia is vandalism and will always be reverted. Marianna251TALK 17:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)