User talk:Cannolorosa

CS1 error on Pseudo-anglicism

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Pseudo-anglicism, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Funcrunch (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC) You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Death of Nex Benedict. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what did I add that was unsourced? Cannolorosa (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added content that does not appear to have support in any reliable source, as if it was cited to a reliable source e.g. [1]. If you continue to edit like this, especially in contentious topic areas, you may have editing privileges restricted by an administrator, so please be careful to stick to the sources, avoid original research, and abide by neutral point of view and the biographies of living persons policy, which also applies to people who are recently-deceased. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the explanation. I’m still a little confused though. Is it that the Oklahoman is unreliable? The edits i made were based of a video included in the article. The edits i made were made based on statements by Benedict’s statements. Those statements, that she made, painted her in a negative light. Please tell where i made a mistake. Thanks for helping me with this stuff as i am new to wikipedia Cannolorosa (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! There can be a steep learning curve, and I appreciate you asking questions. There are discussions on the article talk page (e.g. Talk:Death_of_Nex_Benedict#Original_research) about how as editors, we cannot use our own interpretations of the video to develop content - this is original research and can create the kind of issues that led to my warning. We need to use independent and reliable secondary sources to interpret primary sources such as a video of a police interview. The Oklahoman is an independent, reliable, secondary source, but it did not interpret the video in the way that supports the content you had added. On a separate note, I notice in the edit history of your user talk page that no one seems to have given you a Welcome message, and I will fix that omission in a moment - it has various links and resources that may be helpful to review. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Hyde-Smith

This edit summary what this bill would have done to those laws would have been decided by a court in a likely split decision, not wikipedia editors (1) is original research and (2) maligns Wikipedians who did not "decide" anything other than to report on reliably published material.

This is not the first time I've admonished you for deleting cited information just because you disagreed with it. Please do not continue this behavior. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. saying that the federal law would have overturned the state law is an opinion. Cannolorosa (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Mississippi free press considered a source. Specifically policy states that. Cannolorosa (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source was literally only one-year-old when the article was publishedhttps://www.mississippifreepress.org/about Cannolorosa (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore, the article is self-contradictory. the headline is misleading as the article says”Mississippi Already Meets Most Requirements”(keyword MOST), and “Those changes would have little impact on Mississippi’s voter ID law”(not zero) Cannolorosa (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally i believe that it is best to discuss this on a talk page. Cannolorosa (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

of the article Cannolorosa (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the article’s talk page, i said not to readd the term falsely until a consensus could be reached. Not only did you ignore that, you didn’t even bother reply on the talk page. Instead you went straight to my user page to admonish a new editor. Cannolorosa (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing here. Ursus arctos californicus (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Cannolorosa!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Beccaynr (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 2024 Iranian coup d'état

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as 2024 Iranian coup d'état, is considered to be vandalism and is prohibited. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia—and then to correct them if possible. If you would like to make test edits, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikishovel (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. If you are interested to know how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements already in Wikipedia – and, if possible, correct them. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Continued disruption will be met with sanctions, which could include a block from editing. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i said in my edit summary that i did so due to a heightened possibility. I did it based on The draft page for trumps 2024 campaign being made way before it was announced. Did I violate some policy? if so I apologize and would like to know which policy. thanks. Cannolorosa (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Bashar al-Assad. 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. Thank you. Chetsford (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

his plane was just shot down. he’s dunzo Cannolorosa (talk) 03:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]