User talk:EndangeredSoup

Unsourced edits

Hi, I noticed a few of your edits were unsourced. Saying where you heard something in an edit summary is not sufficient. You might find User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners helpful in learning how to properly cite your sources. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DailyMail, OR

Hello friend. Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia. I just wanted to go over some of our policies with you so that you have a smooth time here. In particular, I noticed your edits to Ashli Babbitt and Justin Timberlake.

We should only cite reliable sources. We have a reliable sources list to help with this. Daily Mail is not a reliable source. WP:DAILYMAIL. However, for sourcing something like Justin Timberlake's son's name, a Google news search turns up good sources, such as the Huffington Post. [1] There's a way to do inline citations in the visual editor, and its use is encouraged.
As an encyclopedia, we are not on the cutting edge of breaking news. Our policy is to wait until news is published in reliable sources before we update our articles. So even if you witnesses something yourself, or somebody posts on Twitter, or in a blog, or a tabloid publishes it, we have to wait to publish it. The information has to be published in reliable sources first.

Hope that helps. Happy editing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content

Hello, I'm Abbyjjjj96. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sophie (musician), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:JOBTITLES

I saw your talk about vice president versus Vice President...

The MOS:JOBTITLES is generally pointed to using lower case in most situations.

Background ... that guidance got altered a couple years ago in a flip into de-capitalisation. It’s not universally agreed, and many WP instances either way now exist - bit of a mess. I personally disagreed with changing, and opposed specifically at “queen of England”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

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 Darius Marder. Instagram is a not a reliable source. Refrain from adding such content. Οἶδα (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Chris Pratt, you may be blocked from editing. – ².O.^Boxing 07:09, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Rebel Moon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mike Allen 23:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not vandalize it. All I did was add what I thought was rotten tomatoes critics consensus. It was a good hearted edit if anything. It was anything but vandalism Filmmaker8306 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You made that up. It is not what the website states at all. Mike Allen 00:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make it up. Rotten tomatoes tweeted that so I thought that was the official consensus. I in no way, shape, or form made that statement up. Filmmaker8306 (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]