Junefith

I recently reverted one of your edit requests due to the fact that it was over 141,959 bytes in size. Please note that the edit request template is to be used for requesting certain changes to be made to an article – example: "Please change the word misisipi to Mississippi". If you would like more information on how to make a proper edit request, then please see this help page. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 19:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Junefith, please heed this advice. Please explicitly state the change you'd like to be made on the Talk page. Do not paste the whole article with your changes included. Robby.is.on (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Junefith, after posting a first edit request at Thierry Henry you posted a second that was about the same issue as far as I can tell. I've removed it. Please reply at your first existing edit request. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello. You keep writing you "gained permission" for your changes at Thierry Henry‎ and Alan Shearer. From whom would that be?

If you object to this please talk to me. No, that's not how Wikipedia works. Per WP:BRD, after your bold change has been reverted, you need to start a discussion at the article Talk page(s) – Talk:Alan Shearer or Talk:Thierry Henry. Until you have reached consensus for your changes, you need to stop edit-warring against the multiple editors that have reverted your changes.

And as we're on the topic of communication: you haven't responded to any of the messages above. Robby.is.on (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I gave an explained rationale of why this is a valid change to the page in previous messages to you and as a result, after plenty of negotiating you granted me access to make adjustments and giving me access to the page that I previously didn't have. So I adjusted it adding the Hall Of Fame induction in his primary info similar to "every sport which has major Hall Of Fame honours" and I believe this makes the page more informative and placing his inclusion deep into the page undermines the achievement as well as how Sky and BT are trying to promote the significance of this award. If you have an objection to this I'd appreciate it if you could give me a valid reason that it's unsuitable or come up with a compromise rather than removing my work. From speaking to others I aswell as other moderators believe to be a valid change. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junefith (talk • contribs) 16:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please learn how to sign your messages. Wikipedia:Signatures has instructions.

If you have an objection to this I'd appreciate it if you could give me a valid reason that it's unsuitable or come up with a compromise rather than removing my work. From speaking to others I aswell as other moderators believe to be a valid change. I think it is best to continue this discussion at Talk:Thierry Henry where in the section titled "Premier League Hall of Fame template in Infobox" another editor, Davemck, has outlined some objections. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay Robby.is.on would you like to refer me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junefith (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I don't understand. What do you mean by "refer"? Robby.is.on (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Robby.is.on You stated that someone objected to my changes which I have stated. Could you refer me to that person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junefith (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

The objections were posted at Talk:Thierry Henry in the section titled "Premier League Hall of Fame template in Infobox". That would be the place to discuss this.

Please see Wikipedia:Signatures for how to properly sign your messages and Wikipedia:Indentation for how to indent them. Robby.is.on (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Premier League Hall of Fame. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You have been reverted by at least 3 editors who all disagree with your additions to the page, and have explained why. Your attempts to WP:OWN the page while pretending to want to discuss your additions are clearly either untrue, or you are failing to actually do the thing that you say you want to do: which is discuss. Per WP:BRD reverting after a user has already reverted your content should not be followed by sequential reverts by yourself, and certainly not of multiple users. Koncorde (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Koncorde I have literally tried several occasions to engage respectfully and I have been threatened and insulted (not by yourself) with no justification. I don't see any validation in why your adjustments add to the informity of this page and that is ultimately what we are trying to achieve here, other than diminishing its quality. You have stated that trophies such as the FA Cup are not valid (yet are encompassed on the Premier League page) yet that doesn't justify your removal of most of the information which is unrelated to that such as the introduction. I have made it clear I have made statements on the talk pages of the two people who have disagreed with my changes and have been perfused ignored. They haven't explained anything in the slightest not on my talk page or in my validations other than yourself on the last edit.

Try WP:AGF and read the article talk page where I have listed concerns, and which is where you should raise discussions about the article in question. Chasing people to their own talk pages can be seen as aggressive, particularly when combined with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Koncorde (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Please stop using an IP address to revert edits to make it appear you aren't vandalising the aforementioned Premier League Hall of Fame page. Thanks. ItsKesha (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Junefith reported by User:Koncorde (Result: ). Thank you. Koncorde (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for Apparent logged out edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You appear to have been editing with both this account and an IP during the reported edit war at Premier League Hall of Fame. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:Flight Reacts a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Flight Reacts. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Flight Reacts has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sources do not demonstrate notability per 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. Pbrks (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Flight Reacts 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/Flight Reacts 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Robert McClenon That is perfectly reasonable. I noticed one of the biggest Youtubers is nowhere to be seen on Wikipedia, so I felt it was only reasonable to create one. Junefith (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2021 (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 Flight Reacts. 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.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Junefith. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Flight Reacts".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply