User talk:Anaphoto

Hi, Anaphoto! Welcome to Wikipedia! I'd be more than happy to help you with your editing, and I'm sure Plastikspork would too. Before we proceed, let's clarify a few things:

First, Plastikspork never said that he wasn't sure how to gauge the material's validity "not because it isn't true simply because he doesn't know because he isn't in the fashion market, so he doesn't care to know". Whether material is valid for inclusion is based on whether it adheres to Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NOTE, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, WP:SECONDARY, and so forth. The validity of an editor's edits is not predicated on personal knowledge on their part, but on whether they examine the material and the sources cited for it. If, for example, someone adds a sentence to an article on space travel, fashion, or 19th century Mongolian transvestism, and cites an online article in The New York Times for a source, all an editor has to do is read that article to see if it supports that material. They do not need to be an expert on those topics to edit articles on it. If this were the case, then I would not be able to edit articles on entertainment or science, as my user page indicates. Similarly, Plastikspork does not need to be a fashion expert, nor you a space travel expert. Disagreeing with one's edits because of your perception that they lack expertise is an ad hominem argument, and actually one of the types of arguments that is believed to typify violations of the WP:OWN policy. What Plastikspork said was that he intended to examine the article in more depth when he had the time, but asked me if I could do so in the mean time, which is the right approach.

Second, I am not aware that Plastikspork does nothing but delete material and does not add to articles, as I've become familiar with his edits over the past couple of years, and have not observed this. If any editor deletes material, the key is to see what policy, guideline or principle of good writing they cited for doing so, and then deciding whether they were properly interpreting that policy/guideline when doing so. If you believe they weren't, try discussing it with them on the article's talk page, and if you can't come to an agreement, then invite others to join the discussion to give their views. You might notice that I myself removed the ciation of Birleanu's official website in the article's opening sentence as a supporting source for calling him a supermodel, because this violates WP:SECONDARY, WP:SELFPUB and WP:NOTADVERT. While sources published by the subject of an article can be cited to support some material, like where they grew up, what their beliefs are, etc., any material that may have the potential to be self-aggrandizing or self-promotional should always cite a secondary source. This isn't because I'm prone to deletion; I was just following a valid policy. Conversely, I would say that I do quite a bit of "replanting", as does Plastikspork.

Lastly, vandalism is a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia. Good faith edits, even ones you disagree with, are never vandalism, even if it is at some point determined that you are correct and the other editor is wrong. Again, examine what policies or principles Plastikspork cited a his rationales for his edits, and then if you feel he was not adhering correctly to those policies, explain to him why you disagree. Merely being responsible for most of an article's edits is not a violation of any Wikipedia rule or guideline; if it were, well then I'd be guilty where a few articles are concerned! :-)

Regarding some of the edits in question, let's look at some of the examples:

• The link used to support the assertion in the opening sentence that he's a supermodel appears to be a dead link.
• The link used to support the quote that characterizes him has a "true bad boy" does not mention this.
• One passage Plastikspork removed read "With style and confidence in his work and approach on set, Birleanu outsmart and outshoot the entire cast eliminating 14 models." This is clearly an opinion, and the cited source did not support it. Even when a source does support comments like this, it is important to note whether it is one person's opinion, or whether it reflects a widely-held view. This is why, for example, articles on films will often quote the film's score on Rotten Tomatoes, and quote some specific reviews here and there, but will not quote only one review, without placing that review in context of the film's general reception. When a quote like the one that was in the Birleanu article comes from one person, it is highly important to gauge whether that person is an expert who's considered a reputable source on the subject in question, or just one person whose view may or may not do so.

In short, Plastikspork's edits appear to be solid, and do not constitute a "vendetta". In any event, if you disagree with him, then try talking to him. Accusing him of having a vendetta in your edit summary is a clear violation of WP:Assume Good Faith and WP:No Personal Attacks. Try to work things out with him, and read up on the policies he cites to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Supreme Rocket Productions, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Lakokat 02:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Supreme Rocket Productions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ... discospinster _talk 03:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Supreme Rocket Productions, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Supreme Rocket Productios. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 07:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Supreme Rocket Productios requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. TheLongTone (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Supreme Rocket Productions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Supreme Rocket Productions 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/Supreme Rocket Productions 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 template from the top of the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Supreme Rocket Productions. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  08:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anaphoto. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Supreme Rocket Productions, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Based upon your edit comment here [1] where you say, "(get the )(&)*(^Y)97 my page". Please also review WP:CIVIL and WP:OWN. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anaphoto for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Supreme Rocket Productions. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t • c »  13:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Andre Birleanu, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that Wikipedia is a wiki in which anyone is able to edit. To that extent, we have a Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy that explicitly says that no single person owns articles here. In a sense, articles such as Supreme Rocket Productions are not your articles; once you hit the "save page" button, it becomes the community's articles and may be edited in any way deemed fit and within common sense and our basic guidelines and policies. If you cannot understand that, then I'm afraid that Wikipedia will not be the place for you. Regards, --MuZemike 22:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Supreme Rocket Productions, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked 3 days for blatant disruption. --MuZemike 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

You were already warned many times to stop your disruption, but yet you persisted, hence this block. --MuZemike 04:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Andre Birleanu, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at Andre Birleanu, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Andre Birleanu. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. This is not a minor edit, as you have suggested in the editing notes: [2]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Andre Birleanu, you may be blocked from editing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anaphoto for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anaphoto. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for inappropriate reasons is not allowed. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anaphoto for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anaphoto. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
• instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:19, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You have deleted AGAIN, like a lost bovine in the word of letters, a entire career of a man . You either are stupid or simply miserable. I'm not related with the person or getting paid as you suggest . You called unreliable sourced a entire career LOADED with valid links . So yes you're just simply stupid and you cant argue with stupid . It's not a insult , idiot is a insult but I said stupid and that is a personal observation. Look it up .. low level Neanderthal . Look at the links then delete away but, stupid will continue in stupidity and, it is a lost battle , sad thing is that procreate and multiply . Stupid kids, wife, dog , even the car becomes stupid after a while . G Monday to you. Please don't reply, I'll become stupid too, keep reading your genius assessments

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Andre Birleanu. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I really would apreaditenifni can simply give you the photo and simply yourself place it as I’m clearly not having a clue on how to do it and it isn’t the first time that are taken down for no reason really !! Where should I send you the photo ?

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andre Birleanu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Founder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Andre Birleanu. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Andre Birleanu. MPS1992 (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page.

Kuru (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]