User talk:Nora28620

Welcome!

Hi Nora28620! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! :Jay8g [V•T•E] 18:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello, I'm Fyrael. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Death of Rey Rivera have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:35, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fyrael,

in response to your contribution, I tell you that it is not promotional at all, since you leave the name of the Netflix program, that is, Unsolved Mysteries, and that is also promotional. Putting the name of the forensic expert who has carried out the investigations on the Rey Rivera case is simply showing the verified and real truth. What is highly suspicious is that either the contribution to this story by this forensic expert or her study in which she says that Rey Rivera was murdered is continually erased. And by erasing it, you are contributing to misinformation. Nora28620 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) You don't understand what misinformation means and 2) again, feel encouraged to participate in the discussion that we've had on the article talk page. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand what disinformation is, just like you do. Your subjectivity is what misinforms, you only have to read the article. Nora28620 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please this users, Awshort, keeps deleting or changing the information given in the source. He deletes it continuously. You can see that he deletes or changes only this information from this page, which is persistent vandalism or disruptive behavior, which Wikipedia should take exemplary measures against.

Thank you. Nora28620 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Awshort (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insanityclown1 and Awshort are the same person with a different username. They continually delete the same verified and reliable information. They do this by changing usernames so that Wikipedia does not block them. Nora28620 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a laughable assertion. Insanityclown1 (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both users exhibit similar behavior patterns, especially in how they manage edits to remove the same verified information. The coincidence in their reasons for deletion and the lack of constructive dialogue about including the information could be indications of a connection.

The fact that both accounts appear to repeatedly remove similar information and switch between different usernames might be coincidental, but it is also a tactic observed in cases of evasion of blocks. Alternating usernames to avoid sanctions can be a strategy to continue disruptive behavior without facing consequences. This is something commonly seen in the case of Rey Rivera.

It would be useful for Wikipedia administrators or checkers to examine the activities of both accounts more closely to determine if there is a connection. Wikipedia has tools and procedures to investigate possible cases of multiple account abuse, and it would be prudent to review this to ensure that tactics are not being used to evade community control.

Rather than assuming the claim is unfounded, it would be beneficial to approach the situation with an investigative mindset. If both accounts are acting in coordination to remove reliable information, it affects the integrity of the article and the transparency of the editorial process. It is likely that they are using additional accounts with VPNs.

My intention is not to make unfounded accusations but to ensure that the article remains accurate and balanced. If there is a pattern in the behavior of these accounts, it is important for the Wikipedia community to investigate to maintain the quality and integrity of the information.

I hope this explanation helps clarify why concerns about a possible connection between the accounts deserve investigation. Nora28620 (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and yet you are throwing wild accusations around. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And you already are the subject of an open sockpuppet investigation. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Mel.monro per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mel.monro. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]