User talk:Coronaverification

Coronaverification, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Coronaverification! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Coronaverification, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 00:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi! I’m BluberryGuy123! I just want to ask what you have edited in the wiki page “Xiaomi”. Thanks! BluberryGuy123 (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed Poco to POCO (to better reflect the new sub brand of Xiaomi rather than just a product line) I also added that Mi is a popular trading name in western markets. Probably because many may not know how to pronounce Xiaomi, not many words start with an X in English. I think I also changed 'Xiaomi Corporation' to 'Xiaomi' and fixed a few factual errors :). Coronaverification (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Pocophone to POCO* Coronaverification (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia, unfortunately one or more of your recent contributions to United Kingdom have been partially reverted. Even though this edit was made in good-faith, it added your opinion rather than neutral and sourced content. A copy of your edit is available on the article’s edit history. For more general advice on editing see the Contributing to Wikipedia page.

If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 04:22, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yes I was about to remove it as it wasn't more of an experienced opinion than a hard fact. I see your an Aussie and you may have been labeled English or 'British in the past, anyways thanks for putting so much effort into Wikipedia, it looks like a very time consuming hobby and hopefully I can be more useful. :) Coronaverification (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it has happened before. Thank you for saying that too. It can be quite time-consuming, I mostly just review changes rather than add new content. Having content reverted happens to all of us, however don't be put off because Wikipedia is for everyone to contribute to. :)

AussieWikiDan ^(talk) 07:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Grand Theft Auto V, you may be blocked from editing. -- ferret (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought It was well sourced, mabye less of the attitude next time. I don't know who hurt you but it wasn't me, at least yet jokeman. Coronaverification (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you blank out or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Grand Theft Auto V. B732 (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was unnecessary as it is a duplicate of information already on the fact panel. Coronaverification (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes are quick snapshots. Everything in them is meant to be in the article prose as well. Some readers and clients don't see or render the infobox at all. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits

Hi Coronaverification! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter page

FYI have no idea why visual editor tagged my recent edits as reverted, as far as I can tell I didn't revert anything. I added a paragraph and removed a line that wasn't backed up by a reference, (though probably should have mentioned the latter). CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 12:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Grand Theft Auto VI. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.

Pdubs.94 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit, it was reverted, I tried to lessen the claim. Both public knowledge. Still reverted. The person who reverted even deleted a comment left on talk page admitting that one was appropriate but realised the slip of the tongue. This was a good faith edit but my sources and considerations aren’t being reviewed properly. Coronaverification (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve been on Wikipedia since I was 4 so I can’t exactly argue with the terminology used here. Coronaverification (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do however ask you give the same warning to the other user, as my actions and terminology have been in good faith and calm, whereas his actions and comments seem counter productive to the typical process of finding common ground and understanding. Coronaverification (talk) 23:07, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' user pages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to Wikipedia:User page for more information on user page etiquette. You need to explain the presence of the link on your userpage. It's removal by another user does not give you any excuse to blank their userpage in retaliation. Polyamorph (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coronaverification: Do not place obfuscated external links on any page at Wikipedia. Do not do tit-for-tat edits, aka WP:POINT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Twitter article

Your opinion on this issue is requested

You have been tagged to this conversation because you may have previously participated in similar discussions and there has been a notable development. Please consider sharing your views. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 23:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted Article Edit

Hello,

I can't make an account but I saw your last post on the talk section of the n-word article. Under the section:

In the 1980s, the term "African American" was advanced analogously to such terms as "German American" and "Irish American", and was adopted by major media outlets. Moreover, as a compound word, African American resembles the vogue word Afro-American, an early-1970s popular usage... [26]

I read through the referenced citation and it did not contain any information on German or Irish American analogous terms being advanced with African American. The notion even seems ignorant to the hundred of years of history that those 3 groups have in America, and the very different treatment those groups had and their rise as compound words used to describe those groups of people.

I hope you have the time to review this but thank you for your time either way. 91.217.105.54 (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]