User talk:Gotorn 999999

Welcome!

Hello, Gotorn 999999, 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 List of largest stars has 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:

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. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:24, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 351666664kbn bjkj

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, 351666664kbn bjkj, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you bacuse I didn't want create this article, I wanted to do a workout Gotorn 999999 (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page WOH G64. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead, as someone could see your test before you revert it. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protection templates

I have no idea what you think you are doing by putting a protection template on someone else's talk page (with this edit), but it definitely comes under the assumption of vandalism. Please take a step back and reconsider your actions on Wikipedia - so far, your edits have been largely disruptive and I believe none of them have survived review by other editors. Please read the beginner pages described above and do not edit until you understand them. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Gotorn 999999 (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to V354 Cephei. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The reference you cited doesn't say what you claimed it said. This is approaching vandalism, please stop making bogus edits. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the first time, my intention is NOT to vandalize Wikipedia. I edited the page to give more accurate sizes. For V354 Cephei, this is what the Wiki page says:

The luminosity, and hence the size, of V354 Cep are disputed. Levesque et al. 2005, find a high luminosity of 369,000 solar luminosity and consequently very large size of 1,520 solar radii, making it one of the largest stars.

From the same data, Mauron et al. 2011 derive a much smaller luminosity of 76,000 solar luminosity, which implies a much smaller size around 690 solar radii. They note the discrepancy but are unable to explain it.

So would it be not vandalism to say that V354 Cephei is 690-1,520 R_☉. You undone it without even knowing that the wiki page for V354 Cephei actually said V354 Cephei was 690-1,520 R_☉. Thanks. Gotorn 999999 (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest stars

I restored the original value for the size of WOH G64 - I don't know where your value came from. Please don't change values without a citation. Tarl N. (discuss) 12:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to make changes to values in List of largest stars without providing references, or providing references which do not support your changes. This could be considered disruptive editing which can lead to being blocked. Please only make edits which can be verified in a reliable external source, and give that source. Lithopsian (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of largest stars. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Thank you— ~ The CyberZaperatorYnoss44⁷¹ ★ ✉ / _Cbs ~ 13:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Betelgeuse to List of largest stars (your addition has since been removed). 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. 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. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to List of largest stars. Thank you— ~ The CyberZaperatorYnoss⁷¹⁴⁴ ★ ✉ / _Cbs ~ 13:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]