Michael Valerian

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Ohk, am sorry for that I never knew. I will, from today, maintain the spellings in the author's original variety of English. Michael Valerian (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello Michael Valerian. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Amanda K. Morales, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Michael Valerian. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Michael Valerian|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Bilby (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am really disappointed that you even took time to write this crap message to me. So you magically thought I got paid because of how I wrote the page? You used your 6th sense is that right? Anyways I was not paid for this work, and my writing nature is because m new to writing, notice that I added that I require further review since I am a new editor.

SO MY ANSWER IS NO, TELL YOUR 6TH SENSE TO READ THE ARTICLE HISTORY NEXT TIME. Michael Valerian (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I ALSO DO NOT APPRECIATE YOU ONLY APPEARING ON MY EDITS TO CRITICIZE ME, NEXT TIME YOU THINK AM PAID HAVING THE COMMON DECENCY TO PRIVATELY TEXT ME UNLIKE PUBLIC ALLY INSULTING ME FOR YOUR OWN PLEASURE. SUCH ASSASSINATION ON MY CHARACTER IS INJURIOUS TO MY PERSON AND I DO NOT LIKE IT. Michael Valerian (talk) 07:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also remove that tag on Amanda K. Morales's page why it was even allowed I have no idea, I never received any payment to work on that page, If I got paid for such I would have declared it. I stated when I submitted the article to be moved to main space that it will require some review because am new to writing articles so some one to come vandalise my work with such personal attacks and accusations is very bad for my mental health.

Am very suicidal and such unproven and accusations make me feel worthless and trigger me. My therapist advised me to add some tasks to improve my mental health and make me feel like am making some meaningful contributions to the world. Michael Valerian (talk) 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. When did you submit the page for approval? As far as I can tell, you moved it from your sandbox on your own. - Bilby (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

See in your rush to act as FBI of Wikipedia you missed detail. Again check the page History, I moved the page from Sandbox and made a note that it must be reviewed as I am a new editor. An editor reviewed it, made some changes and them published it. Then You MR wikipedia congressional oversight came and added your tag.

I have to go and speak to my therapist about how you wrongly accused and made me feel some scum. Michael Valerian (talk) 10:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That clarified the process. There is a system on Wikipedia called "Articles for Creation". I'd suggest that it is worth using, as it has a process for reviewing new articles. - Bilby (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Hope next time you will not wrongful accuse me or other editors. I will use the Articles for Creation next time and not the move feature.

I hope you removed the tag because it is really triggered me and affected my mental health. Michael Valerian (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

A question about an image

Where did you get the image which you have posted in the article Amanda K. Morales? JBW (talk) 10:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You should have asked me this question before calling it dubious. Michael Valerian (talk) 10:06, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Give me your email or tell me how to show proof that I have rights to use that image in the manner I used it. People like you make Wikipedia a hostile platform. You can do better. Michael Valerian (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It was not a good choice to post an edit summary including the word "dubious", and I apologise for that. If you have information which you wish to email to me, go to my talk page or my user page, and click on the link "Email this user". JBW (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:JBW. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --Yamla (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Please note that we get a lot of users uploading other people's copyrighted content and falsely claiming it as their own work. Every hour of every day. It takes a lot of effort for volunteers to remove such copyright violations. Wikipedia works really hard to prevent people stealing other people's hard work. That means when someone uploads a very high quality image, they often get questioned to make sure they really, honestly are the person who took the picture and the person who owns the copyright. I strongly suspect in your case, you are the person who took the picture and the person who owns the copyright. But, please understand, this is a rare occurrence. Hardly anyone understands copyright and so, so many people think it's fine to upload someone else's hard work because they falsely believe "it's on the Internet" means "it's public domain" and think "it's public domain" means "I can falsely claim I created it". --Yamla (talk) 10:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I can prove ownership to the image, I have all the documentation to prove I have the rights to the image I put out. I am well knowledgeable about copyrights and I would never claim to own right to an image or work that I do not have such rights to. It was fine for him or her to suspect but I did not appreciate him using "dubious" that's a personal attack that you must warn him or about. Michael Valerian (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Also remove that tag on Amanda K. Morales's page why it was even allowed I have no idea, I never received any payment to work on that page, If I got paid for such I would have declared it. I stated when I submitted the article to be moved to main space that it will require some review because am new to writing articles so some one to come vandalise my work with such personal attacks and accusations is very bad for my mental health.

Am very suicidal and such unproven and accusations make me feel worthless and trigger me. My therapist advised me to add some tasks to improve my mental health and make me feel like am making some meaningful contributions to the world. Michael Valerian (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You should read WP:NOTTHERAPY. Wikipedia may not be a great venue for you at this time. I sincerely wish you luck and success with your therapy and hope it makes a significant difference for you. :) --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I never said WP is Therapy, I said participating here makes me feel like am making a difference.

Why are you attacking me? Michael Valerian (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I promise, I am not attacking you. I am simply pointing out that Wikipedia can be unexpectedly contentious and may not be the best place for you at this time as a result of that. I'm not saying you should leave, I'm just providing a link to information written by someone else that may apply in your situation. --Yamla (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Ohk, Thank you, I appreciate your support and you looking out for me. I will read the article. I really appreciate your understanding Michael Valerian (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Michael Valerian. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 14:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)