User talk:Aprilajune

Hello, Aprilajune, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Michael Raynor, Actor, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Tea House, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Starting an article
• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Kolbasz (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Michael Raynor, Actor has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article. The nominator also raised the following concern:

All biographies of living people created after March 18, 2010, must have references.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Kolbasz (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Michael Raynor (actor). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Michael Raynor, Actor. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Michael Raynor, Actor – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. The Banner talk 20:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Raynor, Actor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Taxman (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) 08:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Michael Raynor (actor), may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, the next time you re-add those files I will request you be blocked for repeated violations of WP:NFCC. Werieth (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Violating WP:NFCC#1. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  AdmrBoltz 20:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aprilajune (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hadn't even read the messages before this happened. You didn't even give me any time whatsoever to take care of the issue or read the messages. You were warned - doesn't cut it when you don't give a person time to read the messages. I got a message from someone who was reading the article and they are the one who told me first, not you. That's really not fair to just be deleting people's things without even giving them some time to fix the problem. I don't mind fixing whatever the problem is, adding more information, sending something in writing or whatever you need, but wow, you should let a person know what the exact problem is before just being mean and nasty to someone. This is my VERY FIRST article and would like to do more. Constructive help would be better than just making people mad. If I could have assistance to fix the problem, I would know in the future what is needed. It's very difficult to know which check mark in the boxes is correct or if you're doing it right. I really think this behavior is completely unnecessary when I have complied to each and every instruction thus far as you can see from above. I would think helping people would be a better solution to this rather than cutting them off at the knees. I would prefer to have a good relationship rather than just a double edged sword from Wikipedia editing. It hardly seems fair since the rest of the article is good. Now just help me with the images rather than keep doing this. What do you need? What do you want? Wouldn't that be a better solution? Aprilajune (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Assuming Good Faith. AdmrBoltz 21:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You where warned not to re-add the files, I even gave you a final warning and you ignored them. Why should an admin unblock you if you are going to continue to ignore warnings. Wikipedia's policy on non-free media prohibits the usage of them on articles about living people. (See WP:NFCC#1) Werieth (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even read the messages before this happened. You didn't even give me any time whatsoever to take care of the issue or read the messages. You were warned - doesn't cut it when you don't give a person time to read the messages. I got a message from someone who was reading the article and they are the one who told me first, not you. That's really not fair to just be deleting people's things without even giving them some time to fix the problem. I don't mind fixing whatever the problem is, adding more information, sending something in writing or whatever you need, but wow, you should let a person know what the exact problem is before just being mean and nasty to someone. This is my VERY FIRST article and would like to do more. Constructive help would be better than just making people mad. If I could have assistance to fix the problem, I would know in the future what is needed. It's very difficult to know which check mark in the boxes is correct or if you're doing it right. I really think this behavior is completely unnecessary when I have complied to each and every instruction thus far as you can see from above. I would think helping people would be a better solution to this rather than cutting them off at the knees. I would prefer to have a good relationship rather than just a double edged sword from Wikipedia editing. It hardly seems fair since the rest of the article is good. Now just help me with the images rather than keep doing this. What do you need? What do you want? Wouldn't that be a better solution? Aprilajune (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

If you can demonstrate that you understand why your were blocked and that you have a thorough understanding of this policy it is likely that you can be unblocked. -- John Reaves 20:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is something wrong with the images but not sure exactly what it is. I would like some help to know and then I can get whatever is needed to fix the problem as I have access to all the pictures and some that are from a private collection. What exactly do I need and then I can do it and resolve the issue. What it says is "may fail" which doesn't say what that means and like I said, I haven't even had time to read or look at the problem since this happened. Thanks John.Aprilajune (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

You cannot use those images as they are fully under copyright, Wikipedia requires free images for living people. In the future when your edits are reverted dont edit war to your preferred version. There is a reason that the files where removed, If you dont understand why, step back and ask. Werieth (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is it a check box that is wrong or what? I have the permission to use the photos what do you want to fix this issue? Checking a different box a different link or a longer explanation? What do you need. I know they are copyrighten. That's why I have the permission. So what do you need? I thought you were just some random editor who was ruining my work. Aprilajune (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Unless you can get the copyright holder to release the files under a free license it doesnt matter about permission. If you can get the copyright holder to release the copyright, have them email WP:OTRS until the files clear OTRS they cannot be used. Werieth (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so they need to email you with the release of the files and email you directly. It can't come through me. I'll work on this tomorrow as I believe the images are very important to the article listing. Aprilajune (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

Please note that you will need to have the copyright holder (CBS in one case) release the copyright. Side note are you Michael's publicist? Werieth (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I am a journalist and an entertainment reporter. And I got all of these photos directly from Mr. Raynor who actually bought them from the various entities which owned them. I would like to contribute my knowledge to Wikipedia as I found nothing on him prior to what I've written. Do you want him to email you directly? or what?Aprilajune (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

WP:OTRS is who he needs to contact with both proof that he has the copyright to the images and that he is willing to release them under a free license. Werieth (talk) 21:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shawn Patterson (Composer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athol. 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) 11:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Michael Raynor (actor) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 22:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 This guy keeps changing it back even after I put the explanation in the summary. He changed it saying I hadn't put the explanation in the box. I put the explanation there and he changed it back. I told him I'm the author and I know the person and he changed it back. Now I have a "warning" for an editing war. I am not sure why this guy even cares but I AM THE AUTHOR! Mike1901 keeps changing it back. 

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Michael Raynor (actor) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary - note that if some information is incorrect, please corect just this information, do not delete whole sections. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Mike1901 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I did put it in the summary. I put it right in the summary why I took that out. I said it was because the content was not relevant and that's why I deleted it. I am the one who put it there in the first place and this is the SECOND time I've deleted it. I am going to delete it again now. 

Relevancy is subjective. If you have a disagreement about an article's content with another editor, the article talk page is the place to discuss it. Mike1901 (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 I am the author of this content and I know this person very well. This is no longer relevant and needs to be deleted. OMG seriously? The guy above you just thanked me for the edit and my explanation and you keep changing it. Change it back please. This is ridiculous! 

Your recent editing history at Michael Raynor (actor) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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.
Again, this should be decided by consensus on the talk page as to what is relevant. Mike1901 (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how it can be a "war" when I AM THE AUTHOR AS I STATED ABOVE AND COMPLIED TO WHAT YOU WANTED PUTTING THE EXPLANATION IN THE SUMMARY BOX! 

Hello, Aprilajune. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DWFritz Automation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DWFritz Automation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:DWFritzCO.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Aprilajune. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shawn Patterson (composer) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shawn Patterson (composer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

QuietHere (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You recently updated 263 articles to update links from Reed Richards to Mister Fantastic, per the recent page move. While I appreciate the effort, many of your edits violated WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE. In particular, valid redirects should not be piped with the article's actual name, i.e. [[Reed Richards]] should not be piped as [[Mister Fantastic|Reed Richards]] because the Reed Richards redirect still works and the redirect is not needed. Similarly, it is obviously unnecessary to pipe a link with the same input and output text, i.e. [[Mister Fantastic|Mister Fantastic]]. Your edits took sometime to clean up, and I have also spoken with the script's creator to see if this can be prevented by the script. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]