Real tlhingan

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centre for Advanced Paranormal Investigation, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello Real tlhingan. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Centre for Advanced Paranormal Investigation".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Centre for Advanced Paranormal Investigation}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

  Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at The Curse of Oak Island, you may be blocked from editing. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello Real tlhingan, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to The Curse of Oak Island has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

You'd better read WP:NPA. Removing copyright material is not vandalism. You must have read the edit summary and realised that your edits had been removed because they were copyvio, and I would have been within my rights to block you now. I'm not going to, but it would be a good idea to apologise to SummerPhd. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll reply in more detail later, when I'm on my pic, but this is too much copied text. It is possible to do this in ypou own words, others do it. Doug Weller talk 05:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ok. You say you get two warnings, one for disruptive editing, another for OR, but you actually got one warning - for disruptive editing by inserting OR. You should ask the editor removing the material about the copyvio issue. Let's look at "Clues carved in various stones on the island are examined, and a theorist posits that the Aztec Empire may be behind the Oak Island mystery." This could be written as "Carved stones are examined as well as a claim that the Aztecs were responsible for the Oak Island mystery." Note you don't have to mention the presenters names. See America Unearthed, another fringe series, which I think is ok (without checking, but it's been checked in the past. Keep it short, in your own words, and don't suggest any claims are true. Doug Weller talk 13:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Comparison of AMD processors, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages FT3 and AM1. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

From your recent edits to F1 articles regarding Ferrari's power units I noticed you seem to have little understanding on how to correctly source information. Allow me to give you some advice. Putting your own claims within ref tags, like you did here is utterly unacceptable. Referencing always has to be to an external source. Such a source can either be online (i.e. a web page) or offline (e.g. an issue of a magazine). When opting for an online source it is not sufficient to simply put the URL in between ref tags. You have to fill all the information on the online article in question in a template, like this one and put that in between the ref tags. Tvx1 20:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you think it was justified to revert all my edits, when only one could be considered "Updating Favourite Driver"? Five edits made and only the edit in the section "Most races with a single engine manufacturer" required a whole table update, which, I admit, I was to lazy to do at the time. The other table updates were only for: wins, percentage of wins and consecutive race starts, all of which only affected Hamilton. MattSucci (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The other tables also needed race entries and race starts updated for active drivers that didn't win that day. Real tlhingan (talk) 06:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Would you like to explain just how any of my edits removing unsourced trivial statistics constitutes vandalism? To answer my own question, no it does not, and accusing people of vandalism because you disagree with an edit for another reason is against the basic rules of conduct on this site.

Additionally, as I removed content due to the lack of sourcing, if you wish to restore it to the article it is your responsibility to demonstrate verifiability. Adding citation needed tags is not good enough - it's not up to others to do your job for you. QueenCake (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is no requirement to discuss removal of content first. Editors can choose to mark content as unsourced, or start a discussion querying the verifiability of content, which can be helpful in some circumstances, but they can also remove any unsourced content at will. In this case, as the article has been tagged for references for over a year, and almost every record has been unverified since it was added, I had no hesitation in removing anything. I would also point out that the amount of work some puts in in creating content is not a defence against removing it. QueenCake (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history at List of Formula One driver records shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ^{Babymissfortune} 08:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please add your sources to Haas VF-18. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Done tlhIngan 22:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Please stop restoring the FW41 and VF-18 articles. They contain no information about the cars. Creating them as a "placeholder" is not an excuse—there is no need to create those articles before details about them are made public. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you too kthe time to read the articles, you would have information about the car.tlhIngan 01:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I did read the articles, and there is no information aside from the car name and drivers. Compare that to McLaren MCL33, which contains extensive details of how McLaren had to adapt the chassis design to fit the Renault engine. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I reverted your edits that added the Ryzen 3 3200G and Ryzen 5 3400G to this template. I have no doubt you meant well, but 3000-series APUs don't belong in a table of 2000-series CPUs. They already appear in a table of "Picasso" desktop APUs in the main Ryzen article but as there are only two of them at present, with possibly more to be announced it hasn't been moved into a separate template yet. Thanks. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)Reply