User talk:Anthony77600

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 10) worked, and it has been reverted or removed. However, if you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello Anthony77600! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you you need any help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting "adopted" by an experienced user How to: edit a page • upload and use images • start an article

Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention

Policies and guidelines

Neutral point of view • No original research
Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources
What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons

Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule
Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy
External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry
Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

User community

Build consensus • Resolve disputes
Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette
No personal attacks • No legal threats

Community Portal • Village pump
Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists

Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review

Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! JamesBWatson (talk) 10:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Touches the Walls

I see that you tried to move Nico Touches the Walls to NICO Touches the Walls. This was a perfectly reasonable thing to attempt, but the article was previously titled NICO Touches the Walls and was renamed in January 2009 to conform with the guidance on capitalisation in Wikipedia's manual of style. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Randy Orton. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Night of Champions (2011), please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gangnam Style American certification

I was looking through Gangnam Style's edit history and found this.

There is a reason I added "nocert=yes" to the code in the entry for the United States.

In case you didn't know, digital singles are not automatically certified after Nielsen SoundScan confirms sales. Most of the time, days, weeks (or in the case of the BPI, months) pass before songs are certified for having sold a given amount.

Every record label has to apply for a certification, have said application processed and only then will a certification appear at riaa.com. As of my leaving this message, no certifications have been awarded to "Gangnam Style" in the United States.

Please try to be informed and considerate the next time you edit certifications. Thank You --Mαuri^’96 “...over the Borderline” 21:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bubbling Under chart

Re you recent edit in Phillip Phillips, please note that Bubbling Under chart should not be merged into Hot 100 chart as stated in WP:CHART. Hzh (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil (Billboard Hot 100 Airplay)

Please note that Brazil (Billboard Hot 100 Airplay) is not a bad chart. It's not the same as Hot100Brasil. Widr (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Careful

A lot of the charts you are removing citing WP:BADCHARTS are not actually the chart listed there. The Billboard Mexican chart is fine, as is the Polish chart at ZPAV, the Venezuelan chart at Record Report, etc. You need to review WP:GOODCHARTS and WP:OKAYCHARTS before removal.—Kww(talk) 17:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Climax (Usher song), it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euro Digital Songs

This chart is not a bad chart. Do not remove it from articles. Thank you. Widr (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Who Booty

Hi, I'm Ana Bykova. Anthony77600, thanks for creating Who Booty!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for making a wiki page, it looks great. Please refer to the tags added to find out how you could improve it. Best wishes,

Anastasia Bykova (talk) 21:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Jumping the gun

The data in articles should always match the sources referenced by the article. Don't update articles based on news releases when the sources used in the article don't reflect the change unless you also take the time to actually update the sources.—Kww(talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Judge Me

Hi, I've reverted the changes you made to the Belgium charts again because the Ultratop sources say they are still Tip charts. — Oz 22:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Swedish House Mafia, 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. Rvir0522 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to ASAP Rocky discography. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, "On singles discography tables, do not add 100 to the corresponding Bubbling Under peak if the song never entered the Hot 100. Doing so would violate WP:SYNTH by creating information not directly supported by the source (i.e. the notion that the Bubbling Under chart is an extension to the main chart and the position)". So, do not reintroduce your edit please. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

You've been unblocked per our discussion here. Remember: if you change a peak in the article, that peak has to be in the sources used in the article. If you change a certification, that certification has to be in the certification agencies database. You cannot update a sales figure with giving a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for immediately violating the terms of your unblocking. How do you think that the source used in Paramore discography included "103" as a position on a 100 position chart?. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 17:49, 31 January 2013 (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).

Anthony77600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't know if we can post the Bubbling. We can see that everywhere... It's the same for Ultratip on the Belgium chart who is permitted.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. If you cannot understand why you were blocked there is no way to ensure that the same issues won't arise if you were to be unblocked. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:42, 31 January 2013 (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.

That's got nothing to do with why you were blocked again. Look at the discussion above, where Dan56 told you over and over and over again not to add 100 to Bubbling Under positions. He pointed you at the guideline that says not to do it. Look at the terms of your unblock, where I told repeatedly not to add information that didn't match the sources used in the article, and specifically excluded sources in the edit summary. Your edit to Paramore discography did both at the same time. Why did you do that?—Kww(talk) 18:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because in a lot of pages, we can see the bubbling positions, so I tought it was permitted. We can only add Hot 100?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony77600 (talk • contribs)

The guideline that Dan56 pointed you at tells you how to format a Bubbling Under position, marking it as uncharted with a footnote. The big issue is that Dan56 pointed you at the guideline and asked you to stop multiple times, and you just continued. You apparently didn't even read the guideline. Even though I told you that you had to make sure your peaks matched the peaks in the sources used in the article, you added that "103" even though that doesn't appear anywhere in any sources used in the article. Why did you do an edit that did two different things two different people had told you not to do?—Kww(talk) 18:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am so sorry, I just want to be good not bad. It was from : http://www.billboard.com/biz/charts/bubbling-under-hot-100-singles— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony77600 (talk • contribs)

I'm not going to unblock. Another admin will come by and review my decision. You admitted here that you were having trouble understanding me because you don't speak English well. You don't seem to be able to understand why you were blocked, to understand guidelies, or to understand the other warnings on your talk page. I don't think you can edit here because of that. Another admin may disagree, but we will have to wait for one to review this.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the Miguel discograpy, i just update the peak because there is already '103' and for Love Me (Lil Wayne song), it was peaked at 16... Why did u remove that?? Trust me, If I did it again, i will be bann for the rest...

I've corrected it.—Kww(talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand what i have been blocked for,

    I will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
    I will make useful contributions instead.

If I do it again, you will bann me for the rest.

Please, i spend the most time on Wikipedia. Please, i will do useful edits

I've already said that I won't unblock you, and I'm the only one watching this page. If you want another admin to think about it, use {{unblock|reason=Your explanation for why someone should unblock you}} again.—Kww(talk) 17:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to evade your block by using other accounts, as you did by creating User:Chartnews, isn't going to help. It also doesn't help that you did all the same things that made this account get blocked using that account. To get unblocked, you have to use {{unblock|reason=Your explanation for why someone should unblock you}} to get another administrator to consider your request. You will have to figure out a way to convince him that you won't just do the same things again.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 6 February 2013 (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).

Anthony77600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just do useful edits. I add new certification, certification board, new peak, and the year-end charts. So i would be unblock. Kww reverted my edits because my IP adress was blocked.

Decline reason:

This does not address the block evasion noted below. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:41, 10 February 2013 (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.

To any reviewing admin: it's true that a large portion of his edits are useful. It's also true that a lot of his edits involve introducing unsourced material and material that contradicts the sources contained in the article, as well as improperly representing positions on the "Bubbling Under" class of charts. The reason I am not unblocking him is that those problems have been persisting through numerous attempts to evade his block:

Chartnews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tueurtueur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
William leridee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Frankocean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The discussion we have had here and on User talk:88.163.145.10 persuades me that Anthony77600 doesn't understand English well enough to understand other editors' explanations of what's wrong, making it impossible for him to correct those issues.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, If you didn't block me, i wouldn't create other acounts. I create there accounts to do useful edits (see my contributions) and don't reverted my useful edits (see This_Is_Love_(will.i.am_song)... And I understand what did you say. It's a problem for both of us. Block me is uncessary, u saw it. So unblock me and there will have no problem later.

The fact remains that a lot of your edits have problems and that you don't seem able to understand what those problems are because you haven't stopped doing the the same things. At this point, you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Any edits you make from any account will be reverted.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my last edits? I just edits peaks and add certifications board... The pages aren't update because of you. See all pages i edit you reverted....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony77600 (talk • contribs)

I said I would revert every edit you made. What part of that did you not understand? You are not permitted to edit. Any edit you make will be undone. Every single one. That will happen until you convince someone to unblock this account. Every time you evade your block, you make it harder. We have a normal rule for this: the editor has to leave for six months. No editing for that entire time. Not one. After that, we will normally unblock. You can try asking earlier than that (you can even try asking now), but every time you evade your block, you make it less likely that anyone will ever unblock you.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, i don't edit unitl March 9. But after this day, Will you reverted my edits (new peak, certification board)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony77600 (talk • contribs)

I would recommend August 15. I will revert every edit you make until you convince someone to unblock this account. That means that you will have to use {{unblock}} again and ask to be unblocked. If you just start editing again, that will be block evasion, and that will make it even longer before anyone will think about unblocking you.—Kww(talk) 17:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good! Some of songs aren't update for Spanish and Australian charts. Good!

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anthony77600. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2013 (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).

Anthony77600 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok, I used other accounts but if I did it, I did for contribute Wikipedia. Why did you reverted my edits? Did you see my useful edits?? Why am I block while I contribute?!! You can see my last contributions. And sorry to create accounts, but no one update peaks and I tought that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia! Look Mirrors#Charts, French, Spanish and Belgium charts aren't there! I want to be unblock because I spend the most time here and I will update music peaks, certifications and used the source in the article, and I did a list of what i would have to edit since I was bann. Thanks to understand me.

Decline reason:

It is clear to me that you either do not read or do not understand the comments made on this page. Please go back and read the comments made here by Kww, and try to understand them. You are not allowed to edit here; you are not allowed to create other accounts here. all edits you make here while you are blocked will be removed.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:51, 26 February 2013 (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.