User talk:Andy593

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Andy593, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! MaenK.A.Talk 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Glee Cast discography. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Frickative 16:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Satellite" Certifications[edit]

Hi and thanks for your contributions to the "Satellite" article. Please note, however, that 3x Gold is a higher certification in Germany than Platinum. Janfrie1988 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Meyer-Landrut discography[edit]

Hi, I must admit I do not completely understand why you created a second Irish position on Lena Meyer-Landrut discography - and why have you taken out the Spanish position? Janfrie1988 (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Hello Andy,
we've met over the last few days on some of the Meyer-Landrut pages. I'm seeing now that you have been blocked for block evasion. Do you have any comment on that?
Discussion is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Greenock125, as you'll have seen.
Amalthea 20:55, 4 June 2010 (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).

Andy593 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I honestly do not know why I have been blocked for block evasion, my Name is Andy I live in Newcastle, England I am not from Greenock I am interested in music and I want to improve discographies as much as I can so please unblock me I promise to be better on wikipedia

Decline reason:

See below. Amalthea 22:59, 4 June 2010 (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.

Well, that's not a promising start. If you had reviewed the case page I linked to you'd have seen that I am trying to give you a chance here. It is without question that you were evading prior blocks with this account. The question is, how do you want to continue from here on?
Are you willing to own up to it, and address the concerns that get you in trouble again and again? Or do you want to continue playing cat and mouse?
The former will probably be difficult for you. You will have to change your way of editing, but you will be a welcomed member of the community. The latter will very likely get you banned from Wikipedia sooner or later, which means that all your edits can and will be reverted and all your pages deleted without considering their individual merits.
Amalthea 22:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will own up to the allegations and I will promise to change my way of editing, please give me a second chance --Andy593 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a moment here. What I'd like to hear from you first is why you keep being blocked for disruptive editing again and again. One recent report was this WP:ANI thread. Have you read that? What are your thoughts about it? How do you plan to avoid getting into such conflicts in the future?
There are a couple of things I absolutely expect from you:
  • Adhere to the Zero-revert rule
  • Under no circumstances create a new account. Use one account, and one account only. Can you still log into your original account?
  • If someone approaches you on your talk page with concerns, reply! Don't blank the warnings, don't ignore them, don't continue with similar edits until the matter is resolved
This will be a probationary period, for six months. User:Kww, who is willing to offer you this deal and mentor you during this period, might have additional requirements.
I'll be very happy if we can do this. As I said elsewhere, I noticed you the last couple of days, and hadn't seen any issues that can't be worked out. We are all here to make Wikipedia a useful resource. This will only work if we can work together. It is natural that we will have disagreements on how to achieve that, and even about the definition of "useful". The only way to resolve it is through discussion and consensus though, not tenacious editing.
A lot of questions for you, but please think about your answers before replying. Amalthea 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deal[edit]

I am very happy to accept User:Kww's deal to mentor me, I really want to be welcomed on Wikipedia and work together.--Andy593 (talk) 13:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. While we wait for Kww, can you go over the questions I asked above and try to answer them here? Amalthea 13:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthea has explained it pretty well, but here would be the rules of the six-month probationary period:

  1. 0RR. No reverting of another editor's changes, even if it appears to be vandalism. This applies to any change that restores older material, even if the "undo" button isn't used.
  2. No use of any alternate accounts.
  3. No removal of content from any page outside of mainspace (stripped of jargon, that means you can delete material from articles, but not from talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, policy pages, or templates). This includes your own talk page.
  4. No addition of unsourced material to any articles. If you change figures or add material, it must either agree with sources that are already present or you need to provide a new source that backs up your change.
  5. I have the right to add new restrictions in the event of new problems, but I can't add new restrictions retroactively.

Any violation of these restrictions will result in an immediate restoration of your indefinite block. The rules look strict, but the purpose is to teach you to talk with people. If you make a change and people accept it, fine. If people revert your change, you either have to convince them or me that your version was better, or your change doesn't get made.

I'm reasonably active on Wikipedia, but not here 100% of the time. I'm at UTC-7, as well, so there's a substantial time skew. I'll watch your talk page, but you should leave messages on mine if you have questions or need my help. Remember that nothing really ever has to get get done immediately.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that you understand: you will have to explicitly agree to the above terms to get unblocked.—Kww(talk) 21:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Question: Why you keep being blocked for disruptive editing again and again?
Answer: I honestly do not know why I was blocked for disruptive editing I thought I was improveing articles, perhaps I did not do that.

Question: One recent report was this WP:ANI thread. Have you read that? What are your thoughts about it? How do you plan to avoid getting into such conflicts in the future?
Answer: I have not read it. I am a bit dissapointed about it. I plan not to make any uncostructive editing and to carry out experiments on Wikipedia:Sandbox from now on.

I promise never ever to create any more acounts, I have learned my lesson and will never do it again. Andy593 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the above terms to get unblocked. Andy593 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. When Amalthea checks the page next he will unblock you if he agrees as well.—Kww(talk) 22:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have unblocked this account.
A last word of advice, please make sure to always preview your edits, and think twice before committing them, especially during the first few weeks.
Kind regards, Amalthea 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Block[edit]

Hi there. I feel obliged to just leave a comment here, since I was honestly astonished when I came to this userpage and saw you, Andy593, to be blocked. Of course, not all of your contributions might have been totally thought through and I noticed you to be quite bold in editing and reverting stuff. However, I never got the feeling that any of these edits were submitted with bad intentions, I was rather glad that someone else was watching Lena Meyer-Landrut discography (among other articles) so closely and was not afraid to just change something he thought could have been done better or clean up after me or Amalthea. As you can see above, I have left some suggestions for you on this talk page. I may have been a bit irritated by your unwillingness to comment on them but that was nothing major.

To be honest: All of this rather looks like you are an unexperienced, yet bold user who isn't afraid to make mistakes. I am not sure if I can agree to call this "disruptive" editing, although I am not aware of all your contributions.

And to the administrators: I can't help but find this humiliation rituals and display of authority somewhat displaced. Andy593 has made too many constructive and helpful edits to be a vandal. Everyone makes mistakes. And everyone should get a few chances to improve that. I never thought it was so easy to be blocked and I'm glad he's back. All the best, Janfrie1988 (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afrikan New Style[edit]

I've looked at your creation of Afrikan New Style. A couple of things to clear up.

  1. Where is the source that Afrikan New Style was released on 24 November 2008. The one source I looked up claims a different date. What is your source, and why didn't you add it to the article? Your restrictions ask that you add no unsourced material to any articles.
  2. Where is the source for the genres of the Afrikan New Style article? The one source I looked at names different genres.
  3. Two of the singles have sources in the artist's article, but you've actually removed "Y'a qu'à demander" from there. Which is it?

Amalthea 13:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are handling some of those issues, but please, as I asked you above: always reply if someone approaches you with concerns.
So? Amalthea 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The next orange bar will lead you to a block message. Amalthea 15:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overnight edits[edit]

I got up this morning and reviewed your edits since your unblock, and I was a little disappointed with sourcing.

  • Changes to "Roll With the Wind' What's your source of "Oah" being the next single? You are required to provide sources for all of your changes.
  • Je Ne Says Quio (album) lists the genres as "dance-pop" and "trance", while your only source shows "Pop, Music, Dance". What is your source for "trance"?

I know I sound picky, but when I said that all your material needed to be sourced, I meant it. The genres, especially, are the kind of things that are very important to some editors. The only way to edit them without getting into fights is to always provide a source.

Watch out for problems like this one. When you changed to the macros, you created a problem with the reference. Notice how there's suddenly the big red error message? That's because the Norwegian chart had been tagged with a reference named "uke21" and you took it away. There's two ways to fix it: you can either do what the bot did to fix it or you could have edited the text section and changed

ref name=uke21
to
ref name="sc_Norway_Alexander Rybak"

because singlechart always creates automatically named references. Notice the " characters. They're important.

There's no problem with this edit, but just a note: there is now a "UK" option for {{singlechart}}, and it's better to use that than UKchartstats.

{{singlechart|UKchartstats|10|artist=Alexander Rybak|song=Fairytale|songid=34374}}
can be replaced with
{{singlechart|UK|10|artist=Alexander Rybak|song=Fairytale|date=2009-05-30}}

Now that there's an official archive, we should stop using UKchartstats. Eventually I'll go through and replace them all.—Kww(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source for this? You need to stop making new changes and go back to source the ones that Amalthea and I have pointed out.—Kww(talk) 15:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked, again[edit]

So much for that. You utterly ignored everything we discussed above, refused to discuss concerns brought to your talk page, and still introduce unsourced and unverifiable claims to articles (for example with your last edit, claiming a chart position of 25 when the cited source says 48).
Amalthea 16:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


That is completely wrong if you go on to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles/ it will say that "Turn it Up" by Pixie Lott is at number 25 not 48, so can you please unblock me.--Andy593 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No one is going to unblock you until you explain how you are going to source everything we've asked you about this morning. I left questions, Almathea left questions, and you simply proceeded without doing anything to address our concerns.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Great. But why don't you link to it in the pages? You changed the chart number here and here. The respective sources shown in the article, 1 and 2, still show the old chart position. You agreed that "If you change figures or add material, it must either agree with sources that are already present or you need to provide a new source that backs up your change." Why didn't you?
    And that was only the last straw, you were left five (5!) messages before, and you replied to neither one of them. I explicitly said: "If someone approaches you on your talk page with concerns, reply! Don't blank the warnings, don't ignore them, don't continue with similar edits until the matter is resolved."
    Why did you ignore that?
    Amalthea 16:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I will source everything very very carefully if you unblock me. --Andy593 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer every question we've asked you about this morning very carefully first.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why you keep being blocked for disruptive editing again and again?
Answer: I honestly do not know why I was blocked for disruptive editing I thought I was improveing articles, perhaps I did not do that.

Question: One recent report was this WP:ANI thread. Have you read that? What are your thoughts about it? How do you plan to avoid getting into such conflicts in the future?
Answer: I have not read it. I am a bit dissapointed about it. I plan not to make any uncostructive editing and to carry out experiments on Wikipedia:Sandbox from now on.--Andy593 (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know if you are playing a game or really don't understand. Amalthea asked you questions about Afrikan New Style. I asked questions about Oah and Je Ne Says Quio. Why are you ignoring them?—Kww(talk) 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a question about Allez Ola Olé, too.—Kww(talk) 16:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answers[edit]

Question: Where is the source that Afrikan New Style was released on 24 November 2008. The one source I looked up claims a different date. What is your source, and why didn't you add it to the article? Your restrictions ask that you add no unsourced material to any articles.
Answer: http://www.amazon.fr/Afrikan-New-Style-Jessy-Matador/dp/B001HWW9M2/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1275831414&sr=1-3. I thought I did but maybe I didn't.

Question: Where is the source for the genres of the Afrikan New Style article? The one source I looked at names different genres.
Answer: On http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/afrikan-new-style/id296666719 it says the genre is R&B/Soul. --Andy593 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Changes to "Roll With the Wind' What's your source of "Oah" being the next single? You are required to provide sources for all of your changes.
Answer: If you click on the link http://www.alexanderrybak.com/home/oah-new-single-from-alexander/ on there it says “Oah” is the first official single from Alexander’s forthcoming album “No Boundaries”.

Question: Je Ne Says Quio (album) lists the genres as "dance-pop" and "trance", while your only source shows "Pop, Music, Dance". What is your source for "trance"?
Asnwer: On http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/je-ne-says-quio/id373341953 the genre is Pop. --Andy593 (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Understand that I am very disappointed with the way today has gone. I will unblock if you agree to two additional conditions:

  1. Your first edits after unblocking have to be to go back and correct Je Ne Says Quio (album), Roll With the Wind, and Afrikan New Style by adding the sources (and removing "trance" from Je Ne Says Quio (album)).
  2. From now on, if any editor objects to or asks a question about one of your edits on your talk page, you must stop editing until you have replied to the message.

Do you understand and agree to those new conditions?—Kww(talk) 17:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I completely understand and agree to the new conditions. --Andy593 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Understand that we won't be doing this again. Follow your restrictions.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed that your first edits would be to Je Ne Says Quio (album), Roll With the Wind, and Afrikan New Style. You did not do so. In addition, your first edit was a revert, which a glance at the talk page or edit history of Gettin' Over would have revealed.—Kww(talk) 18:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you blocked me I was just about to do those edits you told me to go back to and correct, Je Ne Says Quio (album), Roll With the Wind, and Afrikan New Style so please can you unblock me. --Andy593 (talk) 19:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because "first" means "first", not "second". It is obvious that you are unable to comply with any agreements that you make. Understand that at this point, you are not allowed to make any edits to any Wikipedia articles using any account. Ever. Any edits you perform will be undone. You must stop editing Wikipedia.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... for at least six months. See WP:standard offer. Amalthea 19:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please please unblock me I promise I will do those edits straight away. I feel terrible about the whole thing and just want to be welcomed on Wikipedia. --Andy593 (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this would work better than the last tries. You are of course entitled to WP:APPEAL this block to other administrators. Amalthea 19:47, 6 June 2010 (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).

Andy593 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please give me One more chance I promise I have learned my lesson

Decline reason:

You got so many second chances that the second chance shop has gone out of business. Declined. Tim Song (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2010 (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'm glad Tim beat me to this decline as I had typed something uncivil. You had several chances with this account, and about 30 with all of your previous socks. Enough. Kuru (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone unblock me I really want to be a part of Wikipedia. --Andy593 (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me ONE FINAL FINAL FINAL chance. --Andy593 (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}}

Help requests are used for asking non admin assistance in editorial matters. As you well know unblock requests are handled trough the unblock request template. Seeing you have various declined unblock requests, and that you did not provide any reasoning for an actual unblock i am marking this request as handled without treating it as an unblock request. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 20:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am unblocked I will read:

I promise I will do more constructive editing on Wikipedia. --Andy593 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{help}}

How can I be a better person on Wikipedia. --Andy593 (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2010 (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).

Andy593 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please give me one more change, I promise never to create any more accounts, read the rules and guidelines, read how to edit a page. I will do anything to be unblocked

Decline reason:

I, an uninvolved editor, have spent some time looking at your request. I feel that Kww and Amalthea have really bent over backwards to try to help you, and you have consistently ignored their advice, guidance and directives. I do not see you a a productive editor here.--Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:42, 6 June 2010 (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).

Andy593 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please can you unblock me I promise I will do more constructive editing on Wikipedia. I really want to be a part of Wikipedia and will listen to any advice and guidence.

Decline reason:

You were mentored by some of the best, and you failed to live up to your end of the deal. That was your chance. If you're very fortunate, someone may reconsider as per WP:OFFER, however, I will warn you that even anonymous editing during that time will be considered WP:EVADE, and will be dealt with harshly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:28, 7 June 2010 (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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andy593&oldid=1142851517"