User talk:Marianna251: Difference between revisions

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}}.

Edit on Ian Blackford's page

Hi Marianna!

I don't quite know how to use Wikipedia, but I do know that CSM (or Corbion, as it is now called) is most certainly not a banking products company, but (at least originally) a baking products company. See the about page on their website: http://www.corbion.com/about-corbion, or, indeed, the Wikipedia page that CSM links to right behind the edit I made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbion.

I realise the edit may have appeared silly and/or slightly less spectacular than the original text, but the edit was serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordi3838 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jordi3838: Hi! Sorry for the late response - I haven't been on Wikipedia for a while. Thank you for clarifying that; you're right that I thought the IP's edit was a deliberately silly change, which is why I reverted it. It looks like someone else has corrected the article in my absence.

I hope you don't mind, but I've removed the ref tags from your comment. Ref tags generate a list at the bottom of a page by default, which makes it a bit confusing on talk pages. Thanks again for alerting me to the mistake! Marianna251TALK 22:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me I am beginning to get extremely frustrated at you just thinking it’s ok to constantly throw your comments about on my talk page and I think you should stop like, now? Or I will be reporting you. That’s your only warning. Got it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liamdaniel981 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Liamdaniel981: If you continue to do a bad job of editing, you'll get warned. Issuing nonsense threats to fellow editors will get you blocked. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t think anyone asked for your opinion. Fancy minding you own business?

Pseudoscientific

Hi Marianna,

I have just noted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_in_Science&oldid=827976332 in which you write ""Pseudoscientific" is a factual description."

It is true that it is a factual description, but the point is that its insertion in this article is POV (Point of View). Who has proven Intelligent Design is pseudoscientific?

There are three professors in scientific disciplines (Thermodynamics, Engineering Design and Micro and Nano Technology) in three UK Universities (Leeds, Bristol and Liverpool) on the Board of Directors and Council of Reference. I agree with whoever removed the word "pseudoscientific" and I will appreciate it if you would reconsider and remove it. Ergateesuk (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ergateesuk: Uh, no. Intelligent design is pseudoscientific and has been repeatedly proven to be so; see Intelligent_design#Scientific_criticism for wikipedia's summary of the evidence.

However, even if I agreed with you that intelligent design has not been conclusively proven to be pseudoscience at best (which I don't, because it is), the majority of reliable sources about Truth in Science describe their material/agenda as non-scientific, pseudoscientific, even just superstition. Our opinions are irrelevant: if the sources say X, Wikipedia says X. You can start a discussion on Talk:Truth in Science to try to gain a consensus for a change if you want, but so many reliable sources say the opposite of what you want to say that I really don't think you'd be successful. Marianna251TALK 22:46, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Dennis Nilsen

Nilsen was of course Scottish by birth, but his crimes were committed in London. Therefore, wouldn't a description of British be more appropriate? Many articles on offenders of this nature in America describe the offender as American rather than Texan etc.Kieronoldham (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

@Kieronoldham: Thanks for the message! There is a distinct difference between the parts of the United Kingdom and states in the USA, however. Describing a Texan as an American has a better analogy with describing a Glaswegian (someone from Glasgow) as Scottish. If you call a Texan an American, you're not likely to get thumped in the face the way that you might if you told the wrong Scottish person that they're British.

UK nationalities are very complicated even to someone born and raised in them, like I was. The key difference is to remember that England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland were all independent countries and have only relatively recently formed a union. Texas was never its own country; Scotland was, up until only a few hundred years ago. When it comes to people from the UK, it's best to reflect either the way they describe themselves or the way the sources describe them. The sources on Nilsen almost all describe him as Scottish. Hope that helps. Marianna251TALK 20:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Ooh, just found the Wiki page WP:UKNATIONALS - it gives an overview of just how complicated UK nationality is and has been historically. See also the UK government's list of ethnic categories. Marianna251TALK 20:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Marianna251. Argh. Was sat on the fence and could see merit in either description being the better one. I know most of the sources describe him as Scottish (I largely populated the article). Off-topic to a degree, but I have Scottish in-laws and have visited Scotland frequently in my lifetime. For the most part, they have a better sense of nationalism than most English people. I learned quickly not to talk loudly on buses and trains due to the glares I sometimes received - especially at Inverkeithing .--Kieronoldham (talk) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)