Hello, Wyrm127, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! —PaleoNeonate – 12:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Evidence of common descent has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Evidence of common descent was changed by Wyrm127 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.862248 on 2018-06-23T14:28:39+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wyrm127, and welcome to Wikipedia.Some of your additions to Virgo Cluster, Draft:Red nuggets, and Evidence of common descent have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and 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 the 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 legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse 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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand my Virgo Cluster and Evidence of common descent edits, I made those before I new that there were copyright rules. But I don't understand what I did in my Red Nuggets draft. Was it my use of "ancient relics" without using an inline citation? Is there any way I can get my work back on my draft and fix it? Thanks for helping me figure out how to edit Wikipedia.

--Wyrm127 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Red nugget, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again Wyrm127. Wikipedia often automatically highlights edits which may be problematic (there can also be false positives), but this brought edit to attention. There are many things to learn on Wikipedia and this type of edit is very common.

We have WP:ENGVAR as part of the Manual of Style with more information. In this particular case the article appeared to be a mix of American and British English. If we can determine that it's closer to a particular variant, for consistency it is best to fix the rare cases to match the dominant variant. By a quick look I have the impression that the article is closer to British English overall (i.e. use of behaviour vs behavior).

It is also similar with date era (BC/BCE, AD/CE) for which we have MOS:ERA. In some cases the English or era style of an article can completely be changed but to do that consensus must be reached on its talk page.

Also similar is the referencing style, if an article uses a dominant variant (i.e. WP:HARV or WP:CS1 style), unless a consensus is reached the style of new references should ideally be consistent with the others.

This allows new article authors the choice of English, era and referencing style, while ensuring some consistency in that article.

Thank you for your contributions and happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 11:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh sorry. I wasn't aware that analysed was used instead of analyzed in British English. I thought it was a spelling error. Thanks! Wyrm127 (talk) 18:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, most words that end in "~ize" in US English, are spelt "~ise", past tense "~ised", in British English. The same applies for Australian English, although US spellings are acceptable but not actually preferred by most writiers. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Wyrm127 (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• 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, and seek consensus with them. 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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Carl Fredrik ^talk 11:08, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is unfortunate. We can all be mistaken and even when we think we're not, the majority may consider that we are. In which case the WP:CONSENSUS policy is very important, if our propositions cannot obtain consensus, we should accept to move on to more productive areas (a good essay is WP:STICK, editor time being considered precious). It's not too late for that, of course. One of the worse outcomes would be to be considered WP:NOTHERE (not here to build the encyclopedia), at which point it's possible to get ignored or even blocked. Please take the time to read again what others have expressed. I also hope that you understand that the chemtrails article is about the conspiracy theory, not contrails, cloud seeding or pesticide application, which exist and are the subject of other articles... —PaleoNeonate – 11:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:PaleoNeonate I'm sorry, but no one would address the OP, which was what my question was. I was trying to bring back attention to my question, but irrelevant or already addressed points kept on being brought up. I really wanted to know how "false" would fit into the category of not disparaging your subject. I wasn't trying to start a debate. Again, I'm very qsorry. Wyrm127 (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So am I, I don't think that you're a WP:NOTHERE case since I've seen some of your other contributions. It's probably just time to move on... —PaleoNeonate – 03:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:PaleoNeonate Probably for the best. Thank you for helping me again. Wyrm127 (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:PaleoNeonate Nick threatened to block me for incompetence/not being here to contribute constructively if I don't answer him. What should I do? I asked him if he thought I would be blocked if I answered on his talk page (I filled him in on the situation above), and he just said that his talk page is always open. I'm concerned because it feels like I'll be blocked either way. Wyrm127 (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This feels like you're finding reasons to avoid discussing your behaviour. You're welcome to post on my talk page and I'll then decide on whether or not I'm going to block you, as I do with anybody who is subject to accusations of disruptive editing. Nick (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had the impression that you agreed to move on from the chemtrails article. If you're required to explain your actions at Nick's page, I suggest to also mention that there, although showing evidence of it would likely be better (by improving or writing other articles)... I also recommend reading WP:CONSENSUS and WP:WIKILAWYERING (the latter is an essay, not policy, but a good read as there appeared to be some attempt to reinterpret the policies in the previous debate). Nick as an administrator is concerned with behavioral issues and can take related decisions; he also wasn't involved in the content dispute, so should normally be WP:UNINVOLVED enough to evaluate the situation with a clear head. If you ultimately end up blocked, WP:APPEAL and WP:STANDARDOFFER maybe useful. —PaleoNeonate – 02:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You quoting the discussion between yourself and me on User:Nick's talkpage and describing my comments as his does not look good from a competence point of view. I strongly recommend you strike the entire quoted section and address the question Nick asked you as to why he should not block you. - Nick Thorne ^talk 04:23, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Nick Thorne I made a mistake, but now everything is addressed, so I'll keep it. Why shouldn't he block me? I thought I made it obvious by pointing out that I had addressed every single reply to me, no one addressed the OP, and the main argument used against me was flawed. So now he can understand that I was truly listening to other people, and that I actually had a point. I think it's easy enough for Nick to understand what I'm talking about when I put it under a subject titled "Blocking Me". I wanted to drop this subject (as I said above), but now I guess I have to defend myself so I don't get blocked. Wyrm127 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Wyrm127! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 20:35, Sunday, August 19, 2018 (UTC)