User talk:Informing And Uniting

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Jin dynasty (266–420). Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 23:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Informing And Uniting! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Venus several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Venus, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 21:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok then, just ignoring the fact that your image is also flawed. Informing And Uniting (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Venus. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Remsense ‥ 论 21:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I appreciate your dedication to trying to improve astronomy articles, but please make sure whatever you added is grammatically correct English. You keep making capitalization and punctuation mistakes like this one on Comet Hyakutake and it's frankly tiring to have to clean up after every single edit. And secondly, please do not change images of articles on important subjects like Saturn without asking other edits for agreement. You should bring your concerns to the article talk page and tell other people your reason why you think the image should be changed. Most of the time, there is an established reason why the article uses the image it does now. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 23:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

why was my Vanth changed? Informing And Uniting (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Just checked now, looks like there wasn't anything wrong with your Vanth edit apart from the improperly capitalized caption. I must have been too hasty when reverting your other mistaken edits, sorry about that. I've readded the static image in the infobox and put the animated gif further down in the article. I went to double-check the Wikipedia Manual of Style and found out about this just now, and I think it's worth letting you know too---animated gifs in infoboxes are generally discouraged if they are too long or flicker a lot, according to the Wikipedia accessibility recommendations. The 52246 Donaldjohanson article had a similar situation where the infobox image used to be a pretty long gif before it was replaced by a static full frame image. Anyways, I hope my recent edit is enough of a compromise. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions to Confederation of Central America (1842–1844). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it has no sources. I have converted it to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Klbrain (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but how could I add citations? Also, could I add a citation from Wikipedia itself, as the page History of Central America includes a segment about it. Informing And Uniting (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi! To answer your question about citing Wikipedia: we actually cannot use a Wikipedia article as a source for another article. This is because Wikipedia is user-generated, so it isn't considered a "reliable source" for itself. see Wikipedia:CIRCULAR

However, that History of Central America page is still a great place to start. You should check the references listed at the bottom of that page. You can look up those specific books or websites and cite them directly in your draft. Sisigegg (talk) 00:09, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Moon of 208996 Achlys, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I sent it to review Homlos (Message me bro) 14:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Informing And Uniting. Thank you for your work on Moon of 208996 Achlys. Another editor, 11WB, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

This article needs inline citations.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|11WB}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

11WB (talk) 08:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

@11WB: Added inline citations! Informing And Uniting (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the fictional File:Flag of the Free Duchy of Redosvis.png from your user page, and will nominate the file for deletion. See here for what not to put on a user page, particularly the section about how Wikipedia is not a soapbox. There are a lot of things you do on your user page, but please don't upload material that is unrelated to Wikipedia, especially stuff you have made up yourself and which could be mistaken in good faith for being something else (Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes applies here). Renerpho (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republic of Central America (1852–1854) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Central America (1852–1854) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Trupoliticaltheorist (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing hoaxes, such as Republic of Central America (1852–1854), 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. Felicia (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Well we should delete it but its not a hoax, wikipedia from ages ago mentions it, and so do the sources I provided. Informing And Uniting (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

The sources used in the article either were fan websites, or books that do not reliably accredit to what was claimed in the article, and the content contained therein did not match the sources regardless. Trupoliticaltheorist (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, fair enough. Grandly and Sincerely, Informing and Uniting. (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2026 (UTC)