Hello, ThunderBrine, 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 Canon (fiction) have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be 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. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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.  BilCat (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2021

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2022

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Canon (fiction), but we cannot accept original research. 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. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Hi ThunderBrine! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Fastest animals that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia — it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Meters (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Fastest animals, 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. Did you even read the source you added? That was a record speed, not the speed of an average human. Meters (talk) 04:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not reading the source I gave more thouroughly. I will have to search for the average speed in body lengths for a human from other sources. In the meantime, I would like to ask: What is your opinion on me putting the relative speed for these animals? ThunderBrine (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fastest animals, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Please stop adding your calculated relative speeds. We don't edit Wikipedia based on editors' assumptions, and some of your assumptions are clearly incorrect. Meters (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shades of red, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shades of blue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azure.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Shades of red. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied or moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to be more attentive when copying similar material into other pages. ThunderBrine (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Shades of green into Shades of chartreuse. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 12:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hey there User:ThunderBrine, just a warning, the recent edit you did to Shades of azure was not helpful, please don't Vandalize our encyclopedia continuing will result a block, please and thank you. Lucky10 (Userpage) (Lets talk!) 19:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC) Reply with ((Ping|10-Is-Lucky)) or leave a message![reply]

Hello User:10-Is-Lucky, I would like to explain my thought process for the recent changes to the color pages. I have relocated the colors not within the hue range of 195 and 225, as those colors are not truly azure. I based this conclusion on mathematical proximity. I hope you will not penalize me if I perform these edits any further.

While we are on the topic of bans, is it possible to get my ban repealed by you or another wiki editor?ThunderBrine (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

ThunderBrine (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC) In order to prevent a ban from the wikipedia staff, I will explain myself. I have been going through all the primary (red, green, blue), secondary (yellow, cyan, magenta), and tertiary colors (orange, chartreuse, spring green, azure, violet, rose) and have been giving them their own shade pages and templates, as well as editing others to coincide with the new creations. I do not think I will editing the arbitrary color pages (brown, purple, pink), and will only be the ones where I feel concrete and certain.[reply]

If red as a primary color is allowed attention, then it surely follows that green and blue get the same treatment. If yellow as a secondary color is allowed attention, then it surely follows that cyan and magenta get the same treatment. If orange as a tertiary color is allowed attention, then it surely follows that chartreuse, spring green, azure, violet and rose get the same treatment.

I created this paragraph detailing how each color should be categorized: "In a color proximity sense, a primary color has a color range of 120° (60° on each side of the color's hue) and any color has to be within that range to be considered a variation of that color. Secondary colors have a color range of 60° (30°), tertiary colors have a color range of 30° (15°), quaternary colors have a color range of 15° (7.5°), quinary colors have a color range of 7.5° (3.75°), and so on."

A load of WP:OR, with no actual sources to back it up. I have removed all those sections, and think some of these attempts at additional articles should be merged. Hate to tell you this, but color definitions are not mathematical, and do not constitute equal slices of a pie. "Spring green", for example, is a shade of green as culturally defined (hence the name) and belongs in that article, not a separate one. In fact, the idea that all must be equal segments of the color wheel is completely incorrect and invalid. oknazevad (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Color classification is no longer purely cultural in nature.

Colors are mathematical and scientific, and to suggest otherwise would be not only arbitrary, but a disservice to the study of colors. The RGB color wheel was made by Issac Newton in 1666 when studying optics, and the most modern form of the CMYK color wheel was created by a painter, Jacob Christoph Le Blon in 1719, by using an adaptation of the RGB color wheel.

The concept of a color having a dedicated angle number to it's hue is not something that was simply made up. Each color can be subcategorized to an mathematical infinite degree through the equal slices of the color wheel, or pie. For example, Veronica is a subset of Indigo, which is a subset of Violet, which is a subset of Blue. This information was easily gathered by looking as a color, the quinary color Veronica, and going up it's classificationary roots like you would classify life of an animal, like how a human would go from Homo Sapien Sapien to Primates to Mammalia.

Orange is "just a shade of red", and violet is "just a shade of blue", yet the reason why people treat spring green differently (including you, possibly) is because we haven't created an arbitrary name to differentiate it from its primary color family, even when all three colors are in the same situation. If spring green were to be treated this way, we would have to treat the other tertiary colors the same; The Orange article would be deleted, and it's assets would be relocated appropriately to the Red and Yellow pages, Violet would be dissolved into Blue and Magenta.

We as Wikipedia editors should deliver an intellectual resource to consumers in a consistent fashion. ThunderBrine (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shades of green, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chartreuse and Aquamarine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Shades of rose

Template:Shades of rose has been nominated for merging with Template:Shades of pink. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 22:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for merger of Template:Shades of azure

Template:Shades of azure has been nominated for merging with Template:Shades of blue. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. pbp 22:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Shades of rose

A tag has been placed on Category:Shades of rose indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history. Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Rsk6400 (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Quartz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Citrine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]