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 Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

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.

A lot more edits were made to Sigma Tau Gamma since your comment on the talk page and 3RR warning to Blevy. Could you take a look at it when you get a moment? He also deleted almost all conversations from the talk page, including your comment. I've since restored. only (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: Thanks for the heads up. I'm on UK time, so it looks like this happened overnight for me. I suspect that the now-blocked SigTau2015 may have been a sock, given the similarity of their edits to Blevy's, although it hardly matters since SigTau2015 now has a soft block for having a promotional username.

From a quick skim of the article, it looks like Blevy has taken on board the point about references, and even if they haven't improved the peacock language of the article they've left the peacock tag alone. They're not necessarily being helpful overall, but they are trying, so I don't think an edit warring discussion is the way to go. The article needs editing to neutralise the language anyway, so I've given it a go. We'll see what happens. Marianna251TALK 13:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making those edits to the article earlier today. I've restored them since the revert. I almost went to 3RR this morning to report but I don't think they'd technically "broken" it yet. I appreciate that you've reported it now after their more recent reverting. only (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for the help. I figured I couldn't actually make the article worse than it was, and it was only as I filed the edit warring report that I realised my edit could itself be considered edit warring. Oops. I'm definitely going hands off on the article until the edit warring discussion is over. Marianna251TALK 23:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marianna251 Hi, my name is Brent Levy and I am a Communications Coordinator for Sigma Tau Gamma's National Headquarters. I have been updating this information from our National Website as well as citing the information. I do not understand why you took it upon yourself to remove and rewrite information that you have no ties to this organization. If you have any further questions or concerns you can email my supervisor, Greg Ward, at gward@sigtau.org. Thanks. Blevy97 (talk) 19:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blevy97: I explained why I initially reverted your edits on the article's talk page, which you have clearly seen based on the message you left there, so I won't go over that again. My recent edit was a general edit of the article to try to address its myriad issues. Put bluntly, my edits to the article were to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia's policies, manual of style and other guidelines.

However, based on what you've said here, it also appears that you have a conflict of interest (see also the notice I added to your user talk page). Basically, Wikipedia strongly recommends that you do not edit pages that you have a link with. Wikipedia is an encylopaedia, not a vehicle for advertising or promotion, and adding promotional material can lead to users being blocked from editing. Unfortunately, almost all of the material you've added has been promotional.

I've had to file an edit warring report since you've made it clear you intend to keep reverting the page to your preferred version, but I'll withdraw the report if you can demonstrate that you understand Wikipedia's policies and are willing to abide by them. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I want to be as clear as possible. I'd like to work with you, but we need to be clear that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that nobody owns any particular article. Marianna251TALK 22:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please stop changing the changes i make to Glenn Tamplin. We are having a good bit of banter so if you could stop being such a killjoy i would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.1.27 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2017

We clearly have a different opinion of what's funny. Also, your edits deliberately introduced factual errors to the article, making them vandalism, which means they will continue to be reverted because they're not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Marianna251TALK 13:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove. Not relevant to town history. You are probably not even from Newtown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 23:32, 28 July 2017

Whether you like it or not, the Sandy Hook shooting is part of the town's history. It was an event that received significant media coverage worldwide, making it both notable and relevant to the article. Please do not disrupt the article further by continuing to remove the information.

FYI, please sign your talk page posts using ~~~~ or the signature button at the bottom of the edit box. That way I can tell who has left a message. Marianna251TALK 23:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it. Please remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:4300:fb20:799a:7abb:6e70:34f5 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) No. We deal in reality. If that's not to your liking then Wikipedia isn't for you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.

Wikipedia is for everyone, though. Including me.2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTI

2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry on Dennis Prager keeps reverting to this: "falsely claiming that an oath on any book other than the Bible would be unprecedented." Dennis Prager never said that -- hence there is no citation for it. What he said was an oath on "another religious" book or text would be unprecedented. Here is the source: Prager's column from December 5, 2006: "I am for no law to be passed to prevent Keith Ellison or anyone else from bringing any book he wants to his swearing-in, whether actual or ceremonial. But neither I nor tens of millions of other Americans will watch in silence as the Bible is replaced with another religious text for the first time since George Washington brought a Bible to his swearing-in." 47.34.209.152 (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source provided on the article showing that Prager's statement was false: http://forward.com/news/9621/koch-calls-for-pundits-ouster-from-shoah-council/. To quote from that source:

"Koch, who served as a U.S. representative from 1969 to 1977, said he recalled using a Hebrew Bible at his initial, private swearing-in ceremony. A number of commentators, including Koch, have criticized Prager for factual inaccuracies in his column, including the assertions that Jewish legislators have traditionally used the Christian Bible to take their oaths of office and that use of the Christian Bible is a traditional part of the official swearing-in ceremony."

[...]

"In his interview with the Forward, Koch pointed out that the first observant Jew elected to the British Parliament, Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, vigorously fought against a required Christian oath of office, and succeeded in having the law changed in 1858."

I hope that makes it clear. Marianna251TALK 23:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we got off on the wrong foot. I only wanted to spare the world of a grim reminder of a terrible event. We need to work harder to shield future generations from the grim realities of life and make the world a safer and loving place for all peoples. I simply thought that revising history to exclude a terrible event was a good thing to do, but I guess I was wrong. I guess I tried in some small way to make my mark on the world by utilizing proven propaganda techniques. Apparently I failed. It seems the truth cannot be hidden. I am sorry.2601:585:4300:FB20:799A:7ABB:6E70:34F5 (talk) 00:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this message; I really appreciate it. I also appreciate the sentiment behind wanting to protect others from a harsh reality and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear or my comments came across as harsh. The thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which means it's intended to provide information - not indiscriminate information, but it also can't exclude anything on the grounds of morality or sentiment without contradicting its core purpose. I agree with wanting to make the world a better place, although I don't agree that ignoring the past is the way to go about that, and I really do appreciate the intention behind it, but that's just not what Wikipedia is for or about. It's inherently neutral (or at least it should be).

Without wanting to put words into anyone's mouth, when Chris Troutman left the message above saying that Wikipedia might not be for you, I believe what he meant was that editing Wikipedia might not be something that suits you. It doesn't suit everybody. Wikipedia is a huge project with an equally huge set of policies/guidelines and it can be difficult to navigate them. If you'd like to contribute to Wikipedia, though, you'd be very welcome! There's a lot of editors, myself included, who would be happy to answer questions and discuss potential changes. The helpdesk or the teahouse are good places to ask questions. Until you get the hang of the place, it might be better to stick to proposing changes on article talk pages, or using the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle.

I hope that helps. Thank you, again, for the apology and your understanding. Marianna251TALK 11:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okaaaay, having seen this and your edit filter log, I take it all back. Your behaviour at the moment is purely disruptive. Either you're being deliberately disruptive or you genuinely don't understand the issues. Either way, right now you do not belong on Wikipedia. Marianna251TALK 19:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Marianna251: I've long felt that AGF is for suckers. It'll only take you a few times getting burned like this before you become jaded and cynical enough to just chase the new users away. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I can see that. I kind of feel like I passed through cynicism years ago (not on Wikipedia, obviously) and now I've cycled back around to a weird kind of optimism. On good days, at least! On bad days, I try to stay away from talking to anyone, especially online, because it makes me wish I could wipe out the whole human race and start over with something new. Maybe hedgehogs, although that might not solve anything. Marianna251TALK 20:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I apologise if I did put words in your mouth above. I basically meant that everyone can read Wikipedia, but not everyone is suited to editing it, which I figured is what you were saying. Sorry if I overstepped. Marianna251TALK 20:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary! I have always been blunt, if not harsh. My sibling used to say much the same to my parents because I would inevitably spout off in an unwelcome manner. If I see someone causing problems I try to give them a bit of understanding with a large helping of reprimand. In cases like these I find my misanthropy justified. But you, like many of the better Wikipedians here, have extra stores of patience and will seek to sow concord rather than discord. If it were up to me, I'd've told him/her to go back to Facebook. Your instinct to avoid hurt feelings is a good one, though not one I'll be adopting. I didn't invite any of these users to edit here so I really have no time for their hassles. Perhaps you do. I don't think my faith in you is misplaced. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, glad I didn't offend. For the record, I think both our approaches are needed. Marianna251TALK 21:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okei are you a girl?