User talk:Fighterplanes

Welcome!

Hello Fighterplanes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

In Wikipedia, new Users do not automatically receive a welcome; not even a machine-generated welcome. Welcome messages come from other Users. They are personal and genuine. They contain an offer of assistance if such assistance is ever desired.

I suggest to everyone I welcome that they may find some of the following helpful — there’s nothing personal in my suggestion and you may not need any of them:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on Talk pages (ie discussion 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Dolphin51 (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: GetBackers

But the encyclopedia section is still an unrelible source, so it cannot be used.Tintor2 (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not allowed. Everything needs a wp:reliable source.Tintor2 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying anything. The proof you say it's just not suitable for wikipedia. Shouldn't the actual maker from that dub have a site for that dub?Tintor2 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the work itself does not say anything about the dub. Moreover over, the online episodes are copyright violations.Tintor2 (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another wikipedia article cannot be used as a source because of the same reason ANN encyclopedia can't be used.Tintor2 (talk) 13:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all the sources to that dub are copyright violationsTintor2 (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to be more specific when adding stuff the Animaxindia site has no Getbackers info. Moreover, you kept adding more unsourced sentences which are unneeded.Tintor2 (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it didn't have anything about GetBackers.Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, read Wp:Civility. Second, it is just WP:Original Research as it's just a comment based on something the source just doesn't say. It could even be expanded to "No, DVD, VHS, Bluray, books, dolls, etc. were released by SPE".Tintor2 (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the source just doesn't say that.Tintor2 (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It points that the site has no information regarding the series, so just not mentioning there are no DVDs is enough. If there were DVDs, then it would be mentioned.Tintor2 (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But again it needs a wp:reliable source; moreover, the article is meant to talk about existent material. Readers will not be going to wikipedia to search for something that doesn't exist.Tintor2 (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit at CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder

Hello! You mentioned in this edit's summary that you are undoing possible vandalism. There may be confusion in conversion of figure from Mach to knot and km/h but it was certainly not vandalism. --SMS ^Talk 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder‎, but we cannot accept original research. Original research 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. Note that you have twice added erroneous information on the aforementioned article page which are not supported by the given source. So if you were to do that again, I guarantee you a BLOCK faster than you can bat your eyelid. Take heed. Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning, listen to TopGun and go to Talk:CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder to discuss this per WP:BRD. Also, just to let you know that the WP:BURDEN is on you to prove us wrong and not for us to prove you right, that's not our obligation here. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]