User talk:Miller kelsey95

November 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to R5 (band) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: R5 (band) was changed by Miller kelsey95 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.886779 on 2015-11-13T17:56:12+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Miller kelsey95, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to R5 (band) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. That includes images from the record label that you found on the net and claimed that you owned. See your messages on your Commons user talk page for more Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually do own the image, that means you are the record label, the actual photographer, or otherwise authorized to release promotional images to the public with the proper free-use permissions, sent proof as required at COMMONS:OTRS. This will likely require an email from an account belonging to some real person authorized to release images at Hollywood Records. Until then the image cannot be used in articles on wiki, no matter what you assert on an edit summary. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Olivia Holt. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Olivia Holt, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to R5 (band). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:LEAD. The current lead section conforms, your changes still read like a press-release. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how my edits were adding adding personal analysis? All information is included in the article posted by GoPro and verified from other outlets.

It looked too much like a press release jumping immediately into giving details about the subject and removed a valid intro that actually said what the article was actually about and why this band is notable. The original lead section was much better. There should be very little extra in the lead than what should be well-covered in the body of the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

April 2016

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in R5 (band). There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. See specifically MOS:LEAD Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]