User talk:Touranushertz

Welcome!

Hello, Touranushertz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! I noticed your recent changes to the Melky Cabrera article and thought you might find this guide helpful for getting familiar with adding sources and providing the necessary details about them. Zepppep (talk) 04:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alan Eagleson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gil Stein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fieri

Please keep your additions to articles on topic, avoid adding information that appears primarily promotional in nature, and review sources against our reliable sources criteria. Note that in the case of biographical articles and information, additions with such problems should be removed outright.--Ronz (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BMW N63, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page V12 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of sources

Hi Touranushertz, providing sources is important at Wikipedia, as per WP:ORIGINAL and WP:VERIFY. I believe some of your recent edits to BMW N54 are at odds with this policy, so please keep this in mind. Regards, 1292simon (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Zepppep (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Die Hard 2. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMD

I reverted your edit because it did not appear to add any further encyclopedic information, and undid cleanup work I did. The article does not need overblown coverage or meta-discussion relating to "globalisation issues".

It does not need a separate section "Recent history and closure" (2years) which is longer than the history of the plant (60years).

If there is additional information please add it, without making retrograde edits to reference formatting. Oranjblud (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you please stop reverting the EMD article - you're undoing valid changes - and it's not clear to me what new information you are adding. If you want please tell me what the new part it is you want to add.

One of your sources is a blog and is not suitable.

Some of the additions you are adding are simply not in the source you gave http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/business/workers-locked-out-at-caterpillar-locomotive-plant-in-canada.html?_r=0 eg dental costs. Additional the version you written is not correct eg during labor talks with the Canadian Auto Workers, EMD stated that the labor costs at EMD Muncie are about half of those at EMD London -EMD did not state this, CAW did.

If you can find information relavent to the article which is not in the version you reverted from, please use the talk page of the article to discuss or mention this this.Oranjblud (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were other issues with the version of the article you created - you stated The London factory was threatened in 2011 when EMD opened a locomotive final assembly plant in Muncie, Indiana - but this is not verified by either of the two sources given.Oranjblud (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your version also included the statement Negotiations with the CAW never resumed, and it has been suggested that Caterpillar's intention all along was to close the plant (despite denials to the CAW during labor negotiations), which was confirmed in February 2012. - none of this information was verified by the reference given, and the statement included unattributed speculation.

I understand that this is a complex subject, and there is potential to say more about the topic - but the content of your edits is not acceptable in its current form - specifcally - see the guidelines relating to verifyability and attributability - see WP:VERIFY and Wikipedia:Attribution. Oranjblud (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

biased edits

Could you please take the time to read WP:NPOV and consider it when making future edits. Also, despite many previous requests your behavior has not improved regarding WP:VERIFY and collaborating with other editors by using the Discussion pages. 1292simon (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice of new section on talk page

[[1]] FYI Greglocock (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audi S8, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cloverleaf and Audi R8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BMW N54 Engine

Your writing style in the BMW N54 article is very indicative of bias. It is extremely important to view the article from the vantage point of a first time user. For example, the changes you added in regard to the N55 could easily signify to someone that the S54B32 engine is inferior to the N54 engine. This can be taken a step further with deduction that the 335i is a faster car. This can be taken a step further; the user could think that any car powered with the N55 is a bargain as the user would be getting a vehicle with a similarly powered engine for less money. It is important for both you and others to understand the engine code that BMW designates. Any engine code starting with S comes from not BMW but BMW M GmbH. These engines are naturally aspirated engines, with a lengthy racing heritage. To compare an S engine to any other BMW engine simply makes no sense unless you are trying to introduce bias, justify a purchase, etc... To the well educated user, who has studied dyno graphs, understands kinematics/mechanical engineering, however - it is well known that this information simply is not true. Although peak torque is a concern, what is of greater concern is the total area underneath the entire power curve. In other words, considering one engine redlines much higher than the other - yet creates a similar peak power, the one that has the higher redline (extended x-axis) will have a higher average power. This is what makes the engine special. Bringing fuel efficiency into the equation, any mechanical engineer who has studied petrol engines most likely has some knowledge of the S54B32. The reason for this is due simply to its remarkable BSFC rating… Meaning for the power it makes, it is one of the most fuel efficient engines in the world (uses 235g/kwh at it’s best point whereas the N55 engine is slightly lower at 245 g/kwh).

I am getting off topic here, but the point is to not use personal feelings, thoughts, or other people's opinions to justify any sentence you add to Wikipedia. Any person that is knowledgeable in this arena would most likely dismiss the entire article due to the extreme bias you added to the article against nearly every engine but the N55 that BMW makes. Please understand that the worst part is, most people are not knowledgeable in this arena, so they could make decisions or worse yet further other Wikipedia articles based on the information you are presenting to the user. Please keep the article free from bias, and introduce facts. Do not remove facts/valid references to further your bias - with a specific example being the removed 0-100 MPH comparison between the S54 (M3) and N55 (335i) powered cars. On a closed course/testing, the 335i is over 1 full second slower than the "similarly powered" M3 to 100 miles an hour; from 0-200km/h the difference grows to nearly 2 seconds. Do you see how the words "similarly powered" can mean something completely different with an actual acceleration figure? Yes, you can find a 0-60 time that is very close to the M3, but this is very traction dependant, not power dependant.

Please refrain from any further destruction to the Wikipedia goal of common knowledge by adding opinions/suggestive wording or removing facts/references to further your personal opinion, whether you feel it is right or wrong. This article is strictly for factual/informative material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audi S8, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cloverleaf and Audi R8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audi S8, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cloverleaf and Audi R8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roger & Me

Your recent editing history at Roger & Me shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. ThePowerofX 23:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, are you and editor User:GoldDragon related in some way?

ThePowerofX 23:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.51.134 (talk) [reply]

Audi S8

I would strongly recommend stopping your troublesome reversions and contentious edits to the S8 and various BMW pages. Also, I find these results rather interesting. Don't you? Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Phablet, 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. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GoldDragon. Thank you. Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Liberty Centre, Markham

The article Liberty Centre, Markham has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication or evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PK T(alk) 21:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]