UniNoUta
March 2020
edit
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Nyla Rose, 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. KyleJoantalk 13:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was a minor edit. It was a simple removal of a repeated sentence. This editor believes such a thing requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. UniNoUta (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Ways to improve Murmur of Youth
editHello, UniNoUta,
Thank you for creating Murmur of Youth.
I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:
Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Meatsgains}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
Melina
editHi, the information is sourced by a reliable, independent source. Stop talking like a rumor. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- PWInsider is a reliable source, known for fact cheking. In the new, you can read that, after talking with several sources, the confirmed Melina signed with WWE. Not a rumor, not "WWE wants Melina back". Confirmation. Same with Morrison, PWInsider reported he signed with WWE. Morrison and Taya denied and, one month later, he made his return. Wrestlers lie, usually about their contracts. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please refrain from edit warring. Clearly multiple other editors disagree with the reliability of the source. Right now you are insisting that the page reflect your subjective opinion that this particular person is lying simply because others have lied about similar subjects in the past. It is not important that the page reflect that a gossip site reported something. At best, you could post that "it was reported by..." and follow that with the subject's denial. You cannot state as fact second-hand anonymous information. PWInsider is not a primary source. It can wait until confirmation, if even such confirmation ever comes. Put this one to bed. UniNoUta (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Several editors are wrong. I talked with LM2000 (a very good editor with years in wikipedia) and he agrees with me. PWInsider is a very reliable source, it's not my fault user talk about CONFIRMED information as rumor, which is not. I don't know what sourced PWInsider has, but the media has reputation and proved right in the past (Morrison), we have no reason to suddenly, talk about PWInsider as a unreliable source. We use secondary sources to not follow just primary sources, which usually have interest to hide information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking with one editor who you like does not change the fact that you are engaging in edit warring and repeated violations of WP:3RR. I will not discuss this further with you here. If you wish to make a case to swing other editors to your side, take it to the subject talk page. UniNoUta (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not my fault several new editors doesn't know about basics Wikipedia policies and insist a reliable source is unreliable and a confirmed, fact checked information is a rumor just because they don't belive it. I do my work, put reliable, sourced information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- What part of "take it to the subject talk page" do you not understand? UniNoUta (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's not my fault several new editors doesn't know about basics Wikipedia policies and insist a reliable source is unreliable and a confirmed, fact checked information is a rumor just because they don't belive it. I do my work, put reliable, sourced information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Speaking with one editor who you like does not change the fact that you are engaging in edit warring and repeated violations of WP:3RR. I will not discuss this further with you here. If you wish to make a case to swing other editors to your side, take it to the subject talk page. UniNoUta (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Several editors are wrong. I talked with LM2000 (a very good editor with years in wikipedia) and he agrees with me. PWInsider is a very reliable source, it's not my fault user talk about CONFIRMED information as rumor, which is not. I don't know what sourced PWInsider has, but the media has reputation and proved right in the past (Morrison), we have no reason to suddenly, talk about PWInsider as a unreliable source. We use secondary sources to not follow just primary sources, which usually have interest to hide information. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please refrain from edit warring. Clearly multiple other editors disagree with the reliability of the source. Right now you are insisting that the page reflect your subjective opinion that this particular person is lying simply because others have lied about similar subjects in the past. It is not important that the page reflect that a gossip site reported something. At best, you could post that "it was reported by..." and follow that with the subject's denial. You cannot state as fact second-hand anonymous information. PWInsider is not a primary source. It can wait until confirmation, if even such confirmation ever comes. Put this one to bed. UniNoUta (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Examples of no independent sources. "You're writing about… a person" "Independent News media, popular or scholarly book " "Non-independent Person, family members, friends, employer, employees" In this case, Melisa isn't independent about the subject, she and the promotion are involved and have an interest ( a big surprise) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't care. Argue about it on the Melina Perez talk page, and familiarize yourself with the policies on edit warring.
- Examples of no independent sources. "You're writing about… a person" "Independent News media, popular or scholarly book " "Non-independent Person, family members, friends, employer, employees" In this case, Melisa isn't independent about the subject, she and the promotion are involved and have an interest ( a big surprise) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Portland
editGood call. I managed to misread everything about that last night, somehow taking it as Bon Appetit was named Portland's restaurant of the year in 2018, with Bon Appetit's own website being the reference. - Seasider53 (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
April 2023
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Audrey Saunders. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please use the talk page, do not continue to edit war. ɱ (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
UniNoUta, when someone with a red link as a user edit wars over a minute detail without discussing, in an article I spent a lot of time compiling, researching, and writing, their passer-by opinion is usually misguided. In this case, it is completely warranted to state what the reliable source Difford's Guide says about Saunders, an element that expresses her notability. ɱ (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
edit
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
edit Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)