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.

Apologies

Dear Marianna,

At some point this morning I noticed that you cleared a comment that was placed on the 'Marsden' Wikipedia page. Unfortunately, I had left my iPad logged on and on that page, and left the room, filled with other people and someone told me that they edited the page. And I would therefore like to formally apologise for you having to clear that page and would really like to inform you that this was not me, and j have felt extremely terrible all day after forcing you to clean the page after 'my' visit and would again like to confirm that this was in fact not me, but somebody else who had access to my iPad when I had left the room.

Sincere apologies, and wishing you well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.120.16.230 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for getting in touch. The edits were reverted, so it's not a problem, but you might want to consider creating an account if you make contributions to Wikipedia semi-regularly. An account would keep track of your edits, meaning they'd establish the kind of editing history you normally have. That way, it would be obvious if someone else edited while logged in as you. Marianna251TALK 19:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Kronke

Thank You for cleaning up the Stan Kroenke article to show less bias. However a user named Illusion87 has dedicated his entire wikipedia time to presenting a biased fans view. All of his edits are just on the one subject, which I would think is a violation of wikipedia policy. His research is purely original and is from sports opinion pieces. 2605:E000:1523:81:E933:272A:FD2F:BB75 (talk) 06:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Down 2000[reply]

Argumentation Theory

Marianna, With your advanced knowledge of HTML, is there a chance you do side work for people? I'm trying to learn as always and am trying to support a citation request for the first paragraph under Argumentation_theory. This is what I have, but when saved it shows several mistakes.

Frans H. Van Eemeran, Rob Grootendorst (2004). "A Systematic Theory of Argumentation" (PDF). Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Philosophy: 12. ISBN 0-521-83075-3 (hard) ISBN 0-521-53772-x (soft)

Thank you again for all your contributions and anti-vandalism work, DavidLWinkler - the guy who still doesn't know how to sign his work.

Argh, what a simple mistake. Muchas gracias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidlwinkler (talk • contribs) 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidlwinkler: Hi David! Sorry for the long delay in my response - I've been away from Wikipedia for a while. It looks like Frietjes was the one who fixed the error, so many thanks to them! Marianna251TALK 11:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Franssen Effect

Hi, Marianna. I recently amended an article on the Franssen Effect, to bring it in line with Wikikpedia's style recommendations, viz., that the variety of English used for an article should best reflect the main nationality associated with the subject. Franssen was Dutch and in the Netherlands the variety of English spoken (and spoken extremely well by most of the population) is that which Americans call 'British English' and the rest of the world calls 'English' (cf. Haitian French, Canadian French, French -- not 'French French'). This seems to be true of Germany and Scandinavia as well. Would I be right in concluding that you yourself are American? That would explain a certain arrogance in treating a non-anglophone nationality as meriting 'American English'. Kind regards, Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.152.79 (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@27.33.152.79: See MOS:RETAIN for why I reverted your changes. Consistent usage of a variety of English within an article should not be changed without consensus, unless there is a strong national tie to the topic. The Franssen effect is not specific to any nationality, therefore there's no reason to change an established variety of English - Franssen being Dutch doesn't make his discovery exclusively Dutch. Also, I'm British. Please remember to assume good faith. Marianna251TALK 11:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transition in not a verb.

Despite its increasing use as such, "transition" is not--and can not be used as--a verb. While it has become faddish to "verb" this noun, the fact is that "transit" is the verb form. If "transit" does not fulfill the requirements for the context, then perhaps "move" should be used. Language should not be subjected to the nonsensical whims of an atavistic sensibility.