User talk:Nelatti

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nelatti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Grammy Award for Best New Artist did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. Nzd (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been notified[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Own work?[edit]

I see that you are claiming this as own work, created in 2014. Yet I can find versions of this going back to 2010 and even further back. Could you please explain? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don't claim any of my edits as own work, Wikipedia doesn't allow users to upload a photo without ticking that box, and lots of times when i tried to outsource the images through Wiki's own search engine it proved inconclusive. Secondly, I don't pay attention to the date of creating or upload of images, I just simply Google search the related image and download the first good copy I find regardless of source because of convenience (potato-patato). I am not trying to be malicious in my editing, persistant and thorough yes, but not malicious. And Thirdly, just because certain information comes from a so-called unreliable source doesn't necessarily mean that the information being passed is unreliable, so I think in those terms it should be thoroughly researched by the Admins before being put down as unreliable information. And by thorough, I also refer to what's in the images and not just the copyright information. You have no idea how hard it is to find the reliable source on Google about specific things that you know only happen in your relatively unknown culture. Like try googling an episode of your favourite non-English (i.e. not American or British) TV show, I bet you won't find much of anything. I know I don't really do the proper research, but I try to contribute whenever the need arises otherwise I'd forget about what needed to be contributed. Try to think of my edits as suggestions to an expanding article that deserves looking in to. (talk)

Please indent your replies and sign your posts.

Yes, you are claiming it as your work - otherwise, find out how to do it, ask someone. The fact that you don't is just typical of all your work, you think you can do what you want, how you want, despite numerous requests and warnings to follow the rules. As for "try to think of my edits as suggestions to an expanding article", other editors are not here to clean up after you - do what you do and do it properly, according to project guidelines and with sources. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Megaman en m. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Romance languages, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Megaman en m (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to the 2012 (film) plot summary have been removed because they added a significant amount of unnecessary detail. Please avoid excessive detail and high word counts when editing plot summaries/synopses. You may read the plot summary edit guides to learn more about contributing constructively to plot summaries/synopses. There are also specific guidelines for films, musicals, television episodes, anime/manga, novels and non-fiction books. 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. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop vandalising the Wikipedia as you did at Fiela's Child. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism II[edit]

Please stop vandlising the Wikipedia as you did at Tiana (Disney). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially malicious content, November 2019[edit]

On the 20th November 2019 you claimed in Stereotypes that: "It is widely accepted that blonde-haired women are often a lot more attractive than their brunette counterparts". You failed to provide any citation to your claim, and you appear to have a history of doing so. If you like to give your personal takes on subjects, perhaps stating it as fact on an encyclopedia is not the adequate arena. --Johannsson98 (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for general competency concerns and for persistent introduction of unsourced or poorly-sourced material into the encyclopedia. Having watched your antics over several years, I'm not convinced that you are here to build an encyclopedia, and much of what you've contributed seems like a long-term test to see what sort of garbage can be added to a an encyclopedia run by overworked volunteers.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]