User talk:Junkrak

Welcome!

Hello, Junkrak, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Draft:Peter Anton (outsider artist), 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 Teahouse, 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:

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! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Peter Anton (outsider artist) (August 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MJL were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Wikipedia is not a reliable source

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Peter Anton (outsider artist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Peter Anton (outsider artist), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Junkrak! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Peter Anton (outsider artist)

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.

A tag has been placed on Peter Anton (outsider artist) 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 real person or group of people that does not credibly 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 read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. CodeLyoko^buzz 00:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Audrey Doering

The article Audrey Doering has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:BLP1E, Wikipedia is not an archive of human interest stories.

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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:22, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Audrey Doering for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Audrey Doering 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/Audrey Doering 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Twin Sisters Reunite for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Twin Sisters Reunite 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/Twin Sisters Reunite 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. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Hyperbolick. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Twin Sisters Reunite, you may be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also please note that placing a fake "AfD closed" template on an article talk page does not work. It also cleary shows bad faith editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Elsa Jean. Thank you. Trivialist (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Elsa Jean for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Elsa Jean 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/Elsa Jean 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. Celestina007 (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Benny Tijerina Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Benny Tijerina Jr. 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/Benny Tijerina Jr. 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. Praxidicae (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Junkrak: I've noticed that you've not yet once communicated with editors concerned with your creations. Please consider reading these warnings on your talk page. Out of 5 articles, 3 have been deleted and 2 are currently at AFD, one of which is headed to a unanimous deletion. Please stop creating content in mainspace and instead go through WP:AFC. Praxidicae (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would second this; I was just about to leave a note when I edit-conflicted with Praxidicae:

It might be worth reading through some of our notability guidelines, and potentially WP:YFA. I also strongly suggest that you start using the Article wizard to submit drafts for review so that you can get feedback and improve the pages you write (and possibly pick better subjects to write about). If you have any questions please feel free to drop me a note, but I'd rather you not waste your time and effort writing articles that will just be deleted. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even I think it's a fucking waste of time. I'm just interested in some random shit, and I just put it on Wikipedia. At least I have reliable sources for this article than shit from random websites. Although, I will fix the flaws for this including the "horrible writing". Junkrak January 11, 2020 21:39 pm (UTC)

Chill with the incivility. And get a blog, Wikipedia isn't the place for people to write about random things they're interested in. It's an encyclopedia for encyclopedic topics. Praxidicae (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do it just to do shit to Wikipedia's reputation. I just want to get the facts out there and present the articles. The truth is, I'm interested in it, and at the same time, I want to tell somebody. Fixed some of the flaws with the article including the shitty writing and some of the sources I've founded. Junkrak 22:14 (UTC) January 11, 2020

This is encylopedic, it counts as it, and it still is. It represents the facts, the sources right, and it tells you about the details of the murder and the trial. Junkrak 22:16 (UTC) January 11, 2020

I think you mistake notability for whatever it is that you're arguing about. Factual != notable. Praxidicae (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what am i doing wrong!? I'm so fucking confused. Junkrak 22:23 (UTC) January 11, 2019

Have you bothered to read any of the links Primefac, myself or others have provided you? Praxidicae (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now I get, I'm being a huge jackass for covering a obscure topic. Carry on, chop the articles head off. Junkrak

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

For clarity, the immediate issue is this edit: [1]. If you believe that editing a BLP in a manner like this is acceptable, you likely will be restricted from editing them altogether. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the subject of Gregory Jackson (Onision), including his channels on YouTube.

You have been sanctioned After receiving a warning yesterday, you proceeded to use an inappropriate source for a controversial claim in the same article, see [2]. Your edits to this article have been entirely out of accordance with our biographies of living persons policy.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade and Ad Orientem: The user violated this topic ban earlier today with their edits before my reversion at 15:23. I had to get their edits suppressed, but suffice it to say they were once again about Onision. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Charles Manson, you may be blocked from editing. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Your editing history is causing a number of editors to question whether or not you are WP:HERE to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. If your editing does not improve dramatically, you are probably going to end up being blocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

The first year of the above block is under arbitration enforcement for repeated and egregious BLP violations in an area from which the editor is already topic banned, with it thereafter converting to a standard administrative sanction for not being here to build the encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1993 (album) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 1993 (album), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I apologize for the mistakes I have caused on this website and I promise just to be another editor who just gives updates on certain subjects, diseases, films, etc. Bring me back and I will never do any bullshit to this website again.

Decline reason:

This is an artbitration enforcement block. That means I cannot lift the block, even if you wrote a valid unblock request (which you didn't; see WP:GAB). If you wish to be permitted to edit again, you'll need to follow the instructions you've been given, above. Yamla (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are not permitted to edit (or remove) a declined unblock request. If you wish to be unblocked, you must follow the instructions you've been given, in a new unblock request. I want to be very, very clear. You must follow the instructions you've been given. If you don't, you risk losing access to this talk page. So do not create a new unblock request until you've read everything posted here in January, and all of the policies you've been linked to. --Yamla (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have refused to follow the instructions given you in the section, January 2020, above, I have revoked your access to this page. I have revoked it for 3 days. This will give you a chance to read everything you've been told on this page, including (but not limited to) how you can request your block be lifted. I'll warn you, if you refuse to follow the instructions once you regain access, I'll revoke your access indefinitely. Finally, note that you keep on talking about uploading images without the owners' permission. That's a serious problem, but not the reason for your block. Note that WP:UTRS is available to you, but if you abuse that, you'll be entirely out of options. --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am not here to vandalize Wikipedia. I am not here to harm Wikipedia nor spam the articles with random bullshit. I am here to give informative views on the article, whether it's a person or a song, I will not hurt the article or the websites reputation in anyway.

Decline reason:

To request unblock, you must follow the instructions in the block notice.

This is an arbitration enforcement block, meaning administrators cannot remove it on their own. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

You can put the unblock notice on hold if you want. Well, I promise deeply and in good faith that I will not do disruptive editing again, and I will only do it if necessary. You can discuss if you want to un-ban me or not. Bots can decide too, so go for it. I learned since then that you can not vandalise on pages or edit too much and I will promise never to do those nasty things again. I also learned to use a copyrighted image for fair use, not just outright upload it without permission. Now I learned a dark and dreary lesson, never use multiple accounts, which I really damn promise I will never do again.

Decline reason:

You have been told how you may appeal this block, but apparently you are not capable of following those simple instructions. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:16, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I have revoked your access to this talk page. You either lack sufficient competence to follow the instructions you've been given or you are deliberately trolling us. Either way, enough. --Yamla (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.