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

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

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

Hello!

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

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

Inquiry regarding Stephen Moore edit.

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

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

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

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

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

Jalen Ramsey

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

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

Richard Cohen/Aly Raisman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pro-Choice

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

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

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

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

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

Recent message from your end

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

Offer of help appreciated

Thank you Marianna251T for your welcome. You may have noted I made a reversal of an edit on Chloe Borehame page. An initial review suggests the user PlayPonyoForMe, which is itself a suspect name (asking for a speific sexual position), some edits suggest interference from a political position, and libellous edits of the aforementioned page. I am aware that Chloe Boreham has being the subject of stalking online and offline and any information that could be gleaned would be helpful, and incorrect edits reversed. What Shall I do? I a have only updated the first page I contributed since joining WikiPedia Anthony Muscio (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)