User talk:Andyjlinton

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Andyjlinton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Banner talk 10:40, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm The Banner. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Waterford because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. The Banner talk 10:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Waterford, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RashersTierney (talk) 10:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith[edit]

Sorry that I had to been harsh, but your addition of the radio station was a plain advertisement. Could you please stop adding it? Besides that, a neutral addition of that station should be placed in the section "Broadcasting" under the chapter "Media". The Banner talk 10:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For learning purposes:

It was not neutral in content and tone. Just stating the facts is good enough.
It was missing sources that write over the station. Sources from or related to the station are not regarded as reliable sources. Please use only independent, reliable sources (for example: national newspapers)
The last part of the last sentence is not relevant to the station but plain advertising for the company the runs the station.
Temporary radio stations and internet radio stations are in general not regarded as notable, unless you can provide sources that proves a wide coverage and a more than local importance. Note: local papers are not always (opinions differ on this point) regarded as reliable sources.
An example of a better text: Zenith Classic Rock is a Waterford-based internet-radio station working with a classic rock format. Each year it is also transmitting by air, using a temporary broadcast license, at FM (...MHz) and AM (1584 kHz). The station is owned by Total Broadcast Consultants Ltd. It still needs reliable sources.

Sorry to see that it now ended in a block, but starting an edit war is not a good method on Wikipedia. Starting a discussion works much better.

You have the right to appeal your block, but you must have good reasons to do that. I suggest that before appealing your block you read Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user and request a coach, who can help you find your way in the sometimes tricky rules and ways of Wikipedia. Ow, and you still have the right to write on your talk page here. Officially it is only to discuss your block, but I guess nobody will have a problem with it when you use it to request a coach prior to appealing your block. The Banner talk 12:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And make it clear that you will not start promoting your employer/company everywhere again. Whe you start propoting/advertising again, you will be reblocked quite quickly. The Banner talk 13:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What rot. This bull-boy tactic just shows how useless and unreliable Wiki is. The example you posted above is the same in content as that I posted. How is a national newspaper an independent, relaible source? Have you seen The Sun? Preposterous.

I offered some help. Your choice when you turn it down. Enjoy your block. The Banner talk 20:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Perhaps you realise now that editing Wikipedia is not a right but an act of kindness bound to some terms and conditions.[reply]

ow, and my suggestion mentioned the same facts (except for some company spam) but is without marketing language and has a different tone. The Banner talk 20:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'a different tone' you mean grammatically incorrect and spelled wrongly, then I must agree. Otherwise, 'tone' is subjective. Reading others' responses to your actions just reinforces my original opinion that you are preposterous.

Perhaps, perhaps. But you are the one that is blocked, not me.

The Banner talk 22:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't care about that! Makes no difference to my life at all. If I were you though, I'd learn to spell and to construct a sentence with correct grammar, since you supposedly sit in judgement of others.

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! 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. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to WLR FM[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. You seemed to be adding unrefernced promotional material rather than references to reliable sources. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Capitalismojo (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Waterford shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Widr (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 12:22, 6 July 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).

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

Request reason:

The reason I should not have been blocked is that the edits I made contained factual information. If that information mentioned a commercial interest, and that's forbidden, then the other commercial interests already mentioned either in the articles or the subject of the articles themselves, should have been removed. I did not intend to promote, merely to inform, as others have done. I see from the histories of some of those who removed my edits that they have a history of this preposterous behaviour, but despite continuing activity like this they seem free to continue. However since Wiki appears to be moderated by these bullies with little sense of fairness (and often only a tenuous grasp of grammar, punctuation and spelling, I shall not ask to be unblocked - as I don't do grovelling. I shall simply register as a different username and try not to offend the bullies' delicate sensibilities next time. Andyjlinton (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need to understand that you, as an individual, have been blocked. If you edit from a new account you would be in violation of WP:EVASION. To have your block undone, you should read WP:GAB and avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:NOTTHEM and WP:NPA problems in this request. Tiderolls 18:36, 6 July 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.