User talk:Minerva481516

Minerva481516 (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

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:

• March 2019
• August 2019
• July 2022
• August 2023
• September 2023

Please do not cite it.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)

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)

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. 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)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Francis Lee (director) when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |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. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 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)

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 receiving yardsreceiving yards, should remain bolded per MOS:BOLDREDIRECT. —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)

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)