User talk:Gigantopithecusman

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. McGeddon (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Loch Ness Monster 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 article's 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. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Loch Ness Monster. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't edit-war to include your own views on the subject. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost where you can post your own personal theories. Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chupacabra, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Chupacabra was changed by Gigantopithecusman (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.869781 on 2016-03-08T08:32:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Chupacabra. McGeddon (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make statements like this [1]. You may not edit-war, and you may not insert speculation based on a TV show you saw. Please take time to understand Wikipedia sourcing and attribution policy. It's a lot more rigorous than you appear to think. Acroterion (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the Nessie image and others you uploaded to Commons are not you own work and is under copyright. They have been deleted. Don't upload images that you did not personally take. Stop and take time to understand Wikipedia policy. This is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for stuff on paranormal phenomena. Acroterion (talk) 12:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gigantopithecusman, and welcome to Wikipedia. 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 cite the source using an inline citation. 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. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Pukehina predator, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmHdxrvYXYs.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Pukehina predator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://cryptidz.wikia.com/wiki/Pukehina_Predator. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Acroterion (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for edit-warring at List of cryptids [2] and for posting an obvious copyright infringement in the article you created after being plainly warned on this page. This is to get your attention: you must start treating this encyclopedia and its users seriously or your editing privileges will be revoked. Acroterion (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what exactly are you talking about here? --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what picture you're talking about.

If you want to upload a picture that you didn't take yourself, you need to upload it to Wikipedia under fair use, rather than Wikimedia Commons. Click the link at WP:UPLOAD and answer all questions truthfully.

Note that any third-party picture you upload will have to meet all the criteria of WP:NFCCP - most significantly for paranormal stuff the photo must have been "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia by (or with permission from) the copyright holder" in the past. --McGeddon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:An idyllic scene- until you spot the giant sea monster in the foreground.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've deleted, since it's clear that you didn't take the picture and have given no indication of its provenance. Please stop doing that. You must take copyright seriously, Wikipedia is the real world, and you have to live with copyright restrictions like everybody else. I note also that the draft in your sandbox appears to be an entirely unsourced set of personal opinions and speculations,. Your personal views are not admissible on Wikipedia, you may only derive content from published academic and journalistic sources, summarized in your own words. Acroterion (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gigantopithecusman/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Gigantopithecusman, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KylieTastic (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wiae was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

 The comment they left was:

This draft is entirely unreferenced, so it does not demonstrate that the creature exists, much less that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks,

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Gigantopithecusman/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wiae /tlk 13:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Boletus edulis. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. I am restoring this message that you reverted last week. Your disruptive editing and lack of communication are putting you on the road to a block. Eric ^talk 11:49, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.  Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]