User talk:YouCanDoBetter

Welcome

Subsequent paragraph divisions were not influenced by your worthless interventions. Go hug your boyfriend if you feel needy, and don't troll an experienced writer.

Don't put a cleanup tag on my work.

It was more than warranted, and I'll be back to either put the tag up or clean it up, probably the latter. Thanks for the heads-up anon, and no, it's not reflective of someone writing to an academic standard.YouCanDoBetter (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YouCanDoBetter, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Nick Moyes (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

YouCanDoBetter, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi YouCanDoBetter! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, YouCanDoBetter. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi YouCanDoBetter! You created a thread called Editing Tables at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi YouCanDoBetter! You created a thread called Music vs. spoken word albums at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi YouCanDoBetter! You created a thread called B-sides by other artists at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: It's All Right (Kinks song) (December 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by HitroMilanese was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No indication how this meets WP:NSONG.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:It's All Right (Kinks song) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:It's All Right (Kinks song), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Hitro talk 07:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:It's All Right (Kinks song)

Hello, YouCanDoBetter. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:It's All Right (Kinks song), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Officer and a Spy

Why the reversion on Roman Polanski's page? The text was put in back when the film's title wasn't known yet, but we know now. Incerto501 (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn’t know if it was vandalism because it said 2013 and was linked to a book. We can put it back in, but it should be with 2019 and the right link/formatting in italics. Thanks for letting me know. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for clarifying! Sorry about the link error, usually I check that first. It's actually already linked twice earlier in the article so I left it unlinked but italicized this time. Incerto501 (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, have a good day! YouCanDoBetter (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited For Free (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael McDonald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lyman Ward.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard ArbCom sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Nick Cave discography has been accepted

Nick Cave discography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Robert McClenon. I'm still working on the page and making it better, but I'm glad to see it's already at a level where it can be published on here. Thanks again! YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keith Richards discography has been accepted

Keith Richards discography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mick Jagger discography has been accepted

Mick Jagger discography, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 07:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bono, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Silver and Gold.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

–::== Tweeden ==

Please review WP:BRD, our page on best practices for resolving editorial disagreements when your edit has been reverted. It does no good simply to assert, as you did in your edit summary, that you are correct. That leads to edit warring, which is unconstructive. Please self-revert your second edit so that the status quo remains in the article while you advocate for your view on the article talk page. See also WP:BLP Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would agree, but there doesn't seem to be any justification in the first place to place undue emphasis on the politics of a subject when it is not relevant, e.g. "Roger Waters, a self-proclaimed socialist and musician with a history of conflict with Jewish commentators, gave his support to the Black Lives Matter movement." If I hear a single reason why Jones is worth mentioning or Stone's politics are worth mentioning, I will self-revert immediately. But at the moment it seems like politically-motivated, off-topic editorializing. Not looking for a fight, just a reason, I don't know who added this in the first place but it seems like they were just trying to go off-topic. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The place to say that is on the article talk page -- before undoing the revert. I did not say it is all excessive. But you need to justify each part you think should be cut. Please self revert. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-code Hollywood

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pre-code Hollywood. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.

Please stop edit warring and go to the talk page and make your case for your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notices

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

Hi, YouCanDoBetter. Please don't misuse the word "vandalism" in edit summaries, as you did here and here. If you take a look at our WP:Vandalism article, especially WP:NOTVAND, you'll see that neither of those edits were vandalism. (And you'll also see that "Intentional vandalism", as you wrote here, is a tautology; it's not vandalism at all if it's not intentional.) Bishonen | tålk 03:51, 29 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

This is, in actuality, a vandalism campaign by a rogue user, and is certainly not a mere case of disruptive editing. Whatever you want to call it, it's sabotage, it's hate-based, and if someone else can effectively deal with it, then do it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the contributions of the /64 range (which is all the same person) and I'm afraid I don't understand how for instance changing "black comedy" to "dark comedy" is "sabotage" or "hate-based". Our article Black comedy begins "Black comedy, also known as dark comedy, morbid humor, or gallows humor, is a style of comedy that..", so "dark comedy" is apparently considered an option at least by some. Is it because of these edit summaries that you call it hate-based? That seems a bit of a stretch. Differences of opinion are not vandalism. Bishonen | tålk 11:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC).[reply]

If you're going to label trolling "difference of opinion", we're not having a dialogue here. I'll stay out of editing these pages, if that makes it easier. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Pale Blue Eye cast

Hi. I have undid your edit here because I'm not sure what "end credits based on tombstones" you are referring to? The cast list is directly based on the end credits as you can see here. Mike Allen 14:49, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal to me, but the way I was taught is basing the order on the individual credit slides (sometimes referred to as "tombstone credits") before the scroll. I don't know if there's a policy either way as to which takes precedence, so I'm not pushing for it. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it, but until then I'm good with keeping as is.

Come Away with Me genres

I’m not quite sure why you keep adding Jazz as a genre. The AllMusic review doesn’t state jazz anywhere in the review. I’m assuming you’re adding jazz because it’s listed under Genres right below Release Date and Duration. That is not what we follow per Template:Infobox album states — The field should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article. Jazz is not stated as a genre in the body of the article, so please refrain from adding it back unless you find a reliable source that actually calls the album a jazz album. Pillowdelight (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted on Allmusic. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interpolating comments

Hi YouCanDoBetter! Please don't interpolate comments as you did here. Especially because you didn't sign your comment, it appeared like Bgsu98 made it instead. I went ahead and moved your comment below Bgsu98's last line.

When it comes to signing your comments, you may find the "Discussion tools" feature useful. It adds a "Reply" button and it automatically signs your comments. You can enable that in your Preferences > Beta features > Discussion tools. I hope that helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Hanson

Great job trimming Curtis Hanson. I was planning to what you did. I couldn't ask for a better follow up. I was planning to do the same

I have to disagree with the trim you gave The Bedroom Window. Though. I think you over trimmed it. Anyways let me know if you intent to pursue the article or would you like I can continue pasting relevant information to it and let you do the rest?

Thanks. Filmman3000 (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll step aside and let you take the lead. I may help out and trim some later, but you're doing a good job. I'll have to look at The Bedroom Window again at some point, maybe I did over-trim it. Thanks for the heads-up. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I re-added a trimmed version of what I had stamped. I will let you know or you will notice my next load. Filmman3000 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I dropped the new load. Come check it out and take the lead. Filmman3000 (talk) 00:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good Filmman. When I get a chance I'll take a look. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ...Is It Something I Said?, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Mooney.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Village People

It was an album, and here's the RIAA ref: https://www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab_active=default-award&ar=Village+People&ti=Village+People&format=Album&type=#search_section Hotcop2 (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go the talk page. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney

Apologies for my revert. I obviously didn't look very closely. Happy editing! Sundayclose (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you my friend. Happy editing! YouCanDoBetter (talk) 19:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #73150

is closed. Redirecting here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

It has never been my course of conduct to use two accounts on a talk page to manipulate a discussion, nor to use both accounts to revert edits on one page to make it appear that multiple editors were supporting my point of view. I naively, and now looking more carefully at Wikipedia policy, wrongly rationalized this was enough, and I realize now that it is not. More often than not I used my secondary account to make compromised edits to save face when I was at odds with an opposing editor, or to add/correct info on a page where I had issues with a main contributor in the past on said page with a different account and wanted to remain inconspicuous. Overall it was just a method to reduce the anxiety of personal conflict to me, which is not good enough a reason, and all I can say is that I won't use a second account moving forward. Beyond this, the primary reason I want to be unblocked is to finish, submit and/or delete some works-in-progress in my sandbox; secondarily I do believe I could contribute more, my record should show that I've been a prolific, relatively drama-free contributor, and that I contribute by researching date corrections, find missing songs and short films for artists' bodies-of-work, clean up bad formatting, etc. I'm planning on cutting back my time on this site anyway, but I would appreciate access for these reasons. Thank you. YouCanDoBetter (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I just reviewed the last 10 contributions from your alt account. On 6 out of those 10 edits, I found that you were editing an article that you had recently edited with this account. Given how long you have been here, I simply cannot believe that you honestly thought that was acceptable use of an undeclared alt account - you must have known that it was deceptive. As such I am not prepared to accept this unblock request, but I'll note that the standard offer is open to you Girth Summit _(blether) 13:01, 8 May 2023 (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 addressed why I edited on the same page with both accounts, and the rationalization as to why, albeit not an acceptable one. Regardless, all I ask at this point is that my sandbox be wiped clean, which I know I can't make administrators do, but it is my request.

In light of this request, I have deleted your sandbox, and all the sub-pages that were linked to from it, under CSD criterion WP:U1. Should your account be unblocked in the future, you can request that these be undeleted either by approaching me directly, or at WP:RFU. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]