User talk:MarvellingLiked

Welcome!
Hello, MarvellingLiked, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

I reverted your changes to the article on the Democratic Party. Please see the talk page tab for that article to join in on the discussion about what should be included regarding the party's position. You can find it here: '''Talk:Democratic_Party_(United_States) ''' Orville1974 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks! I submitted it on the Democratic Party talk page, if you want to check it out.MarvellingLiked (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 Disruptive editing and multiple policy violations
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Jeppiz (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Your recent bold edit has been reverted. Per the bold, revert, discuss cycle, after a bold edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed consensus is formed to keep it. Jeppiz (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing May 2019
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Equality Act (United States). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You must provide rationale on the talk pages before removing numerous properly cited sentences and their references. There are multiple editors working on this article. Changing the number of supporting organizations from 515 to 330 and removing the American Pediatrics Association from the list of organizations, that was added at the request of another user above, is also disruptive.  Dig deeper talk 00:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history at Democratic Party (United States) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yet the remainder of your edits made after this were done without an edit summary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vox ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

What consensus?
Could you please provide a link to the consensus you reference in this edit? ~Awilley (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just noting that I do expect a response here...either a pointer to the consensus you referenced, or an apology for the deceptive edit summary. If you choose not to respond (perhaps hoping I'll go away and forget about it) I will simply block your account from editing as someone who can't be trusted with editing privileges. ~Awilley (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'm responding. Give me a second. MarvellingLiked (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion is here. The large majority of the objections to inclusion of it in the lead involved the allegations being unproven or inconsistent, which are not barriers to inclusion under Biographies of living persons. MelanieN was the notable objector to including it, weakly opposing it being added under a previous RFC discussion. But I believe it meets the criteria for Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators and Closing_discussions. I'm fine with someone from Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure to address it. I'm fine with creating a new discussion if you want. But that is what I referring to in the edit summary. I kept in mind "The desired standard is rough consensus, not perfect consensus" and "judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue". It could perhaps be considered borderline... but I think it makes it. MarvellingLiked (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing to the discussion, and sorry for not assuming better faith. I got very concerned when I looked at the talk page and couldn't find a relevant discussion. Looking at the archived discussion (only had a chance to skim it) I would think that it would merit a formal close. As a side note I would be careful about discounting any objection of MelanieN who is basically the gold-standard for non-partisan, policy-based editing. I can restore the discussion from the archives and request a formal close if you would like. ~Awilley (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Reading a bit deeper into the votes it looks like some people were voting conditional "includes" for shorter alternate proposals by R2 and soibangla, while others (eg TFD) were opposing inclusion of the original proposal on the basis of tone, like including the word "rape", which was excluded in R2's proposal. A second vote or RfC with a toned-down proposal might produce a cleaner result by removing the jumble of conditional supports and opposes. ~Awilley (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to have an administrator address it. Anything with Trump is bound to be heavily controversial, so even developing a rough consensus is bound to be a near-miracle. I'm willing to have a second vote, or, ping an administrator for closure. It's up to you. And no worries about the false assumption! :) MarvellingLiked (talk) 16:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not really up to me. As an admin active in the topic area I try to avoid making specific proposals on content. I suggested starting a second vote with a more modest proposal based on my reading of the archived thread, and generally speaking I think more neutral wordings that take account of people's objections are better for the encyclopedia than contentious wordings that are forced into an article by one "side", but it's not my job to choose the direction this goes. ~Awilley (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanction Notification
 Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC) OhKayeSierra (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What are edits like this one supposed to do? "Elite"--it sounds like you're inserting some QAnon kind of meme into a biographical article. Please refrain. Drmies (talk) 21:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * By elites, I wasn't referring to the discarded notion of the QAnon conspiracy theory, but rather, general influential people in society. Multiple news organizations have described it in this way. (See here, here, here, here, etc.) The term "elite" and "powerful men" have both been used by the accusers and news outlets on whom they were allegedly trafficked by. Is there another term that you would be okay with using? Since Epstein's notoriority is highly related to this. (Instead of him, say, being a random street pimp) MarvellingLiked (talk)

Please slow down
Hello. I see that some of your recent edits at Trump-Ukraine Controversy have introduced errors into the article text. This is a complex and fast changing subject with a lot of references and threads of fact and narrative. Please slow down a bit and make sure that you've correctly entered and formatted your edits with an accurate edit summary for each. When in doubt, it's always a good idea to discuss on the article talk page before going to the article text. Thanks and happy editing.  SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, sometimes one of your edits will get reverted, or moved from the lead to the text. If that happens, don't put it back the way you had it. Go to the article talk page and talk about it. Thanks.-- MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)