User talk:C.H.U.N.G.U.S.Operative (762)

April 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Bottlenose dolphin, 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. Rdp060707&#124;talk 08:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Bottlenose dolphin 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''As you will have seen from my edit summary, I challenge the validity of the rather vague citation you have given, and respectfully request you to discuss this proposed edit on the talk page, specifying the precise page numbers on which the two paragraphs you are so keen to add are actually taken from. It is important that you don't take on trust user-edited content found on certain sites, and appreciate that Good Articles are subject to even greater scrutiny than most. In addition, contents that have been put into the 'public domain' are not necessarily put there lawfully, so attention to detail and challenging potentially hoax content is an important part of being a Wikipedia editor.'' Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Nick Moyes. Your recent edit(s) to the page Dolphin appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I heard this info was confirmed true in that book, IDK the page. C.H.U.N.G.U.S.Operative (762) (talk)
 * We don't give a jot about what people have heard is true, or what they believe to be right by believing social media posts. If you can't source a statement correctly and accurately to a reliable source, and be prepared to back it up, simply keep it off this encyclopaedia and don't copy stuff off other people or reddit-type threads. The content you added has been challenged, and I'm afraid we will not accept it being added back in without far better sourcing. Thank you. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok C.H.U.N.G.U.S.Operative (762) (talk)

May 2021
Hello, I'm LizardJr8. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Yellow-vented green pigeon have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. LizardJr8 (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions&#32;to Red-vented cockatoo ‎, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use your sandbox instead. Thank you. •Melecie!• ~talk~ 07:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

You are one silly edit away from being indefinitely blocked
You editing history (adding fake/silly information supported by false sources) suggests you are WP:NOTHERE, and just want to have a bit of fun. If this should happen again, I will withdraw your editing rights. Clear?Nick Moyes (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Pocillum. C.H.U.N.G.U.S.Operative (762) (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)