User Talk: Minerva481516
Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.
Welcome!
Minerva481516 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
World Population Review is not reliable
You recently cited World Population Review here ↗. It is self-published ↗, so is not a reliable source ↗. It has been discussed several times before at the reliable sources noticeboard ↗:
Please do not cite it. If something on the site is true, there must be a better source for it. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
:Thank you for letting me know. ~~ Minerva481516 (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
A belated welcome
Hi Minerva481516 . Welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved ↗ quickly and easily in collaboration ↗.
Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy ↗ requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.
If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy ↗, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose ↗ of Wikipedia and the neutrality ↗ required in articles.
Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions ↗ that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines ↗.
If you work from reliable ↗, independent ↗ sources, you shouldn't go far wrong. WP:RSP ↗ and WP:RSN ↗ are helpful in determining if a source is reliable.
If you find yourself in a disagreement with another editor, it's best to discuss ↗ the matter on the relevant talk page ↗.
I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Hipal (talk) 22:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)
February 2026
25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Hello and welcome to Wikipedia ↗. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia ↗ are appreciated, but a recent edit ↗ of yours has an edit summary ↗ that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history ↗, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox ↗ to make test edits. ''Please don't WP:SHOUT ↗ in edit summaries.''<!-- Template:uw-wrongsummary --> Sugar Tax (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
:Hi! I prefer writing in all caps, as it is easier for me to see. Did not realize there was a guideline that it may have been mistaken for shouting. Sorry about that!
:Can you please point me toward the edit you are referring to? I want to make sure I am aware of any errors. Thanks!
:~~ Minerva481516 (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
April 2026
25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Thank you for your contributions ↗ to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to :Francis Lee (director) ↗ when you modified the page, you introduced {{cl|Unknown parameters|unknown parameters}}. Just because you specify {{para|some_param|{{var|some_variable}}}} does not always mean that variable will display. The {{para|some_param}} must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview ↗ button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a '''Show preview''' button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history ↗ of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk ↗ for assistance.
Thank you.<!-- User:Zackmann08/uw/Unknown-params-warning --> '''<span style="color:#00d5ff">Zack</span><span style="color:#007F94">mann</span>''' (<sup>Talk to me ↗</sup>/<sub><span style="color:orange">What I been doing</span> ↗</sub>) 03:58, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you for letting me know. I did not catch this when I originally previewed my edits, as I usually do. I'll keep an eye out for this next time. Thank you, again. Minerva481516 (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
June 2026
25px|alt=Information icon ↗ Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style ↗ that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in :Reception (gridiron football) ↗, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page ↗ to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ''Specifically, terms that redirect to a page, like {{noredirect|receiving yards}}, should remain bolded per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT ↗.''<!-- Template:uw-mos1 --> —Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
:Thanks for your input. Since the term ''receiving yards'' does not redirect to the receiving yards page, it was unnecessarily bolded in the article copy. That is why I unbolded it, and other non-redirecting terms on the page.
:I will review the MOS to make sure I am continuing to align with guidelines, and will keep this input in mind for the future!
:Thanks again! Minerva481516 (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Thenk You ;)
Thanks for ur edit on Jay-Z ↗'s article! I don't understand why the 2019 sex allegation needed to be posted twice on there 😅 the one under controversy is way more neutral imo. Wobs100 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
:Thank you - agreed! Minerva481516 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2026 (UTC)