User talk:45.251.33.68

With regard to this reinsertion of a warning template. You say "I couldn't find any general-purpose message template that would be more lenient (or any other message template that would be more specific regarding why his edits were reverted (unsourced information additions". If that's the case, write out a personal comment and don't use a template that gives the wrong message - that's disruptive in itself.

You also didn't look very hard - there are many templates specifically for using original research:  (where "?" is a number from 1-4 in increasing severity) gives this, which is probably what you wanted. -- Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. --

Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That’s odd... I checked User warning templates and didn’t see that (I guess I was scrolling too fast?)... Anyways, I sent a more personalised message. Is that one okay, ? 45.251.33.68 (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's under "Inserting factual inaccuracies and/or libel". you could also have used  - which on reflection, may have been slightly more applicable:
 * Information.svg Hello, I'm Chaheel Riens. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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.
 * This may have been better as the info wasn't created from the user's mind, but from a source that may be questionable as to reliability. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This may have been better as the info wasn't created from the user's mind, but from a source that may be questionable as to reliability. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This may have been better as the info wasn't created from the user's mind, but from a source that may be questionable as to reliability. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)