User talk:Bytemark

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Zach Vega (talk to me) 02:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 01:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thomas Tree, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sarah (talk) 05:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

File copyright problem with File:Thomas_Tree,_Malibu,_2-22-11.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Thomas_Tree,_Malibu,_2-22-11.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm Jake Brockman. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Michael avenatti, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:59, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael avenatti for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael avenatti 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 Articles for deletion/Michael avenatti 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 notice from the top of the article. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 16:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Bytemark. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Michael Avenatti, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * do your best to comply with 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).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 18:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Michael Avenatti
Bytemark: can I ask what your goal is at Michael Avenatti? You are deleting long-standing material, including the primary reasons for his notability. Notifying and  as it seems they have had some conversation with you about this previously. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has been politicized and (in some cases vandalized) since I originally posted it. And while most may know Avenatti now only because of the Stormy Daniels case, that case didn't exist when I posted the original article (the historic California class-action settlement was the original impetus for creating the article). I felt the separate Daniels section was redundant given the fact that it is referenced in the first paragraph.
 * I see. Well, I appreciate that you are the creator of the page, but I think we can agree a lot has been going on in Avenatti's life since then! Generally if an individual is best known for something, there is a section summarizing the reasons for notability (Stormy Daniels, and going on CNN and MSNBC to talk about it every day, sometimes multiple times per day). Since you will almost surely get reverted shortly, I think it'd be a good idea to bring up your concerns on the talk page for discussion. I don't know about all that racing stuff, but there is an entire article dealing with the Stormy Daniels-Trump situation. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no problem with a separate section for the Stormy Daniels case since it is undoubtedly what he is most known for now. But it was my impression that if a page exists for a topic (as it does for Stormy Daniels) that a link to that page should be used instead of describing it in detail on this page - which is why I considered it redundant according to Wikipedia's standards. Again, I have no issue with including it if that is the standard. What I do have an issue with are the edits that are clearly politicizing. For example, removing "Republican and Democratic" from the Research Group entry. Removing it gives the reader the impression that it was a strictly partisan organization, which is inaccurate.