CharlieJS13

Please leave a message here, and I will do my best to respond back on your talk page. And don't forget to sign your posts.

April 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Wear My Kiss. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Tbhotch, 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. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 14:50, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Tbhotch. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Telephone

I asked you once before earlier today to clarify why and what basis you think Lady Gaga should be credited by her stage name as a writer of the song? Where does it say on wikipedia policy or wikipedia rule pages that "the singer of the song who is the main songwriter, must be recognized by their stage name."? Previously you removed my comment. If you fail to respond (note that you have made several unjustified reverts) again i will have no choice but to take out a WP:ANI Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Am i taking it that your are refusing to respond? Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Temporary block request

Last I was aware, calling a famous person by their real name was #1: Not a cause for blocking, #2: Meant to be done before listing a person's stage name according to WP:NAMES, a sub-article of WP:Manual of style. An example given in the article is: "Louis Bert Lindley Jr. (June 29, 1919 – December 8, 1983), better known by the stage name Slim Pickens..." - Vianello (Talk) 00:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Threaten

Please do not threaten me on the site. If you continue to do so, I will have to contact an administrator about you. CharlieJS13 (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me?, You *are* deleting *my* talkpage without my permission, thats vandalism. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page or your home page?

If you're talking about a Wikipedia article, then it is not your talk page. Your talk page is on your home page. CharlieJS13 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

By default -> see {{subst:uw-delete1}}. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

.Here Template:Uw-delete1. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 15:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Songwriting Credits

Songwriting credits should be given to the same people as credited on ASCAP or BMI. In the case of Lady Gaga, her songs are registered with BMI. BMI allows you to search for her both ways: compare

• http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=519338442&keyID=1069550&keyname=GERMANOTTA+STEFANI&querytype=WriterID

to

• http://repertoire.bmi.com/WriterSearch.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&blnAltTitles=True&queryType=WriterName&page=1&keyname=Lady%20GaGa&keyid=0&fromrow=1&torow=25

But, if you go look it up by song, the result is this, which indicates that the primary listing is under her real name, Stefani Germanotta.

When people write [[Lady Gaga|Stefani Germanotta]] or [[Stefani Germanotta]], that serves the purpose: it shows who the song is actually credited to, and, when clicked, takes you to an article about Lady Gaga.—Kww(talk) 15:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on LoveGame. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. —Kww(talk) 16:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13, this is your final warning. Please stop edit warring on the Lady Gaga song articles and, instead, help reach a proper consensus by participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga#Songwriter credit: Stage name vs. birth name. If you revert on any of these articles again, I will have no choice but to block your account from editing. Please be reasonable. — Satori Son 16:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in that discussion. Remember, whatever the outcome, you must respect community consensus on the issue. Also, don't forget to sign your posts. — Satori Son 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the WP:AN3 report temporarily, as you have begun to communicate. Your statement that you "don't want an edit war" rings a little hollow: you've pursued an edit war against three editors for two days. If you didn't want to edit war, why did you keep doing it?—Kww(talk) 17:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make your behaviour acceptable. Even if you gain consensus for your point of view (unlikely, as Eric has chosen a guideline to quote that doesn't apply to this situation, and precedent is against you), the way you pursued it is wrong. After being reverted by two different editors, both of which have significantly more experience in editing music articles than you, you should have taken it to talk pages, and stopped reverting. Reverting without an edit summary, as you did here, is equivalent to calling the editor you are reverting a vandal, which is clearly not the case. Vandalising the user pages of editors that disagree with you is clearly unacceptable.—Kww(talk) 17:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for 31 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. - Vianello (Talk) 20:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for persisting with the edit-wars that gained you the first block, after that block expired. It should be made very clear that any further disruption after this block expires may well be indefinite.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

You had quite adequate warning that your behaviour was completely unacceptable, and the block should not have taken you by surprise. I hope that you will not repeat it now that you are back. For policy reasons, I cannot be the admin that would block you if you resume it, but the admin that blocked you the last time indicated that the next block would be permanent.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga songwriter

I would advise you to change the songwriter row about Lady Gaga immediately. The song articles were perfect before you came along and changed them. Please change them back to Lady Gaga and RedOne respectively. CharlieJS13 (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalise

Then I will have no choice other than to contact an administrator for unreliably sourced information on the song articles. CharlieJS13 (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

AIV warned you that if you d that again you will be blocked. second BMI is not a source?. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

here is the warning. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Removing other people's comments

Do this again, and you can expect that indefinite block to come extremely quickly. Do not remove other editor's comments from talk pages and discussion pages.—Kww(talk) 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. —DoRD (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

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).

CharlieJS13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was very well aware of the last time I was blocked it was for removing sourced information. But Lil-unique1 placed a comment on the talk page of Tbhotch that was distressing and it should've been placed on my own talk page. I take full responsibility for my actions, and if unblocked I will not remove content from other people's talk pages except my own.

Decline reason:

Based on your AIV report, I think an indefinite block was the correct decision. PhilKnight (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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 might be convinced to reduce to a couple of weeks, in order to give you time to read and understand WP:BATTLE, WP:RS and a few other areas that are vital to collegial editing. However, the section you removed was not distressing other than you got caught doing the wrong thing ... removing it was even more wrong. I have no faith that you get it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am more comfortable if it does appear to be two weeks. But I do understand if this is not possible. User:CharlieJS13 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This demand also leaves little doubt that you still don't understand how things are done around here. —DoRD (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Can i just say i asked Tbhotch if it was a mistake or difference of opinion as to why Charlie had removed stuff from his talkpage. I was in no way personally attacking anyone. I had told Charlie on his talkpage that due to the number of warnings on your talkpage (he'd some level 4 and five ones) and for continual edit wars he was at risk of ANI. then when i saw the vandalism on TbHotch's page i was convinced that ANi would be appropriate but Charlie filed one against me and Tbhotch before i had chance to file one for him. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

To DoRD, I was trying to make a point that the person credited with writing a song had to be credited under their stage name if they were a singer. Whether it has anything to do with BMI/ACAS listings is another matter, but the point I was trying to prove is that according to The Fame, the album booklet states Lady Gaga and RedOne as the songwriters. And to Lil-unique1, I cannot argue with you, but please be more careful in what you are saying.User:CharlieJS13 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion here shows a clear consensus to credit the songs to the songwriters' real names, not their stage names. Your continued insistence on doing it the other way round will not help you get a shorter block. —DoRD (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

to Charlie, if you took offence to what asked TbHotch, then i'm sorry. It wasn't my intention. We understand your point. The album's booklet credits her as Lady Gaga and him as RedOne on the album's page. However BMI lists the SONG's credits. It contains the LEGAL protection for the song as a sole release and body of the artist's work therefore when talking about song's we tend to credit her as Stefani Germanotta and him as Nadir Khayat. For the albums we can use Gaga and RedOne. This what was decided in further discussion.Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

{{unblock|Based on the evidence that I have received from Lil-unique1, I am fully aware that my actions were inappropriate and that I agree with the clear understanding of this. I sincerely apologise for any wrongdoing in vandalizing this and of the talk pages of the users that have been associated with this conflict, and if unblocked I do my best to ensure that incidents like this do not happen again.}}

We have multiple issues here:

• failure to abide by WP:CONSENSUS
• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, writ large
• WP:OWNership of an article
• WP:HARASSment of editors who were actually doing the right thing
• a whole whack from here

Are you sure that you have clearly understood these issues, and are fully prepared to move on? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read through each article and I understand it very clearly. I apologise for any inconvenience that this may have caused, and I admit that my actions were entirely inappropriate. CharlieJS13 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship offer

I'm too involved in this dispute to be the blocking or unblocking admin, but I would like to propose a 90-day mentorship program to allow CharlieJS13 to be unblocked. Restrictions would be:

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 edits to songwriting credits.
3. No removal of content from any page outside of mainspace (stripped of jargon, that means he can delete material from articles, but not from talk pages, user pages, user talk pages, policy pages, or templates).

Any failure to abide by this would result in an immediate restoration of the indefinite block.

I'll act as the mentor. Anytime CharlieJS13 wants to revert an editor or modify a songwriting credit, he needs to discuss it with me, and I'll grant single-time permission if I judge it to be appropriate.—Kww(talk) 14:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a fair proposal, so I'll endorse it. —DoRD (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds very fair to me. I am grateful, and I do understand the policies of this. CharlieJS13 (talk) 16:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As one of the involved editors in the previous dispute i just wanted to say i think this is fair. And it seems to be a good compromise to the problem. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, Now that you are unblocked ...

I've been through this before, and the only time it goes badly is when impatience becomes a problem. I monitor things reasonably closely, but there are times when I am off Wikipedia for a day. If you think I missed a question, just ask it again. Don't proceed with something you are restricted from doing because I took too long to answer.

I'll monitor your edits, and let you know when I see problems that don't quite violate your restrictions. If I see behaviour that does violate your restrictions, I'll reblock you without any warning whatsoever.

If you have questions about why and how things are done, just come by my talk page and ask.

I'll put a mentorship notice on your userpage and talk page letting people know what your restrictions are, and asking them to notify me if they believe that you have violated them.—Kww(talk) 15:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally can i suggest that if you can't get hold of Kww you make use of the {{help me}} template on your talk page? Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

Its ok. Apology accepted. I'm sorry too if i came across harsh or personal. I look forward to maybe encountering you on wikipedia in more positive circumstances in the future. :) Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed you've nabbed a few things from my user page LOL! Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Its ok. its kind of flattering i guess LOL. you can find quite a lot of templates at WP:templates. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hey, I just noticed your edits to Lady Gaga. I'm afraid I changed the opening back because that's the format prescribed by the Manual of Style for biographies. As for the category you added, I just wanted to recommend the tool HotCat, which helps you add categories quickly. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, CharlieJS13. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to User talk:Tbhotch

CharlieJS13, may I ask what, exactly, was the point of your edit here today? You know full well that Tbhotch was not "vandalizing" the Lady Gaga song pages, and in fact you are the one who was blocked for edit warring against consensus on those articles. Such a comment on their talk page, "replying" to a completely unrelated message, is harassment. You need to let this issue go. Now. — Satori Son 19:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely and absolutely unacceptable

This edit was absolutely unacceptable, and is a violation of WP:NPA. Tbhotch has never vandalised a Lady Gaga page, and, in all likelihood, never will. In this dispute, the only editor that was editing problematically was you, and even you didn't vandalise the article pages. Your edits to Tbhotch's talk pages and WP:ANI where you removed material were treated as vandalism.

You need to drop this issue. Further personal attacks against Tbhotch or Lil-Unique will result in you being blocked as well.—Kww(talk) 20:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

And a clarification

You aren't permitted to remove text from your own talk page, either. I'll let this one slide without reblocking you, but you cannot remove material from your talk page by terms of your probation.—Kww(talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I've completed restoration of your talk page. As you can tell by this message and the one before, you've skated on very thin ice today, and barely avoided being reblocked.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Disabilities

Any disability you suffer is completely irrelevant to the situation. There are behaviours that are acceptable, and those that are not. You have a set of special restrictions placed on you, and you must abide by them.—Kww(talk) 20:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Please make my user page and user talk page semi-protected please. {{editsemiprotected}} This is because I seem to have the same administrators editing my pages and making new discussions. I prefer to have different administrators discussing various matters. If possible, I would be very grateful. CharlieJS13 (talk 17:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done First, talk pages are an avenue of communication. I understand your concern and agree that fresh eyes might help the situation, but attempting to restrict certain administrators from editing your user talk page is inappropriate.

Second, even if your talk page were semi-protected, administrators (as well as most registered users) would still be able to edit it. Semi-protection only bars unregistered editors and very new accounts from editing the page. The main reason a talk page would be semi-protected is if it were being vandalized by such users.

With regard to edits to your user page, I don't see any edits made by anyone other than you going back at least a week.

Accordingly, I do not see any reason to protect the page, so I regret I must decline your request. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Today's editing (and reply)

I have not been harsh with you at all. I'm sorry that you think that I have. I've reviewed your edits for today, and didn't have any problems except for the request to have your page semi-protected. I'm sure that asking to have anonymous IP editors blocked from editing your talk page isn't what you intended. What were you actually trying to accomplish?—Kww(talk) 17:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

That's to be expected. I'll contribute frequently for the next 90 days, and editors that edit actively in the areas you edit in will tend to contact you on your talk page as well.—Kww(talk) 17:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of questions

I reverted two of your edits today.

1. Removal of "citation needed" tag. Why did you remove a "citation needed" tag without providing a citation?
2. Name order change. Why would you think that Britney Spears was more recent than Ke$ha? Isn't it clearly the other way around?

—Kww(talk) 22:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked again

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating probationary editing agreement. You agreed to not perform any reversions, even of obvious vandalism, as a portion of your unblock agreement. This edit violated that agreement.. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 23:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... didn't notice that your next edit was to undo your violation. Please use an edit summary explaining the situation if you accidentally violate the restrictions and correct it again.—Kww(talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

List of Synthpop artists

Your disagreement is not with me but with inclusion policy for this particular article. As of now is pretty simple. 1. There must be an article for the band for it to listed 2. Somewhere in said article the word synthpop must appear. Otherwise it will be deleted as I have found out on more then one occasion. Since for whatever reason the magical word does not appear in the Lady Gaga article if I did not delete the entry somebody probably would have within a couple of days. Especially because people have strong feelings about that particular artist. I do not agree with elements of the policy and brought it the talk page. One other editor commented on my disagreements and liked things just the way they were. Thus no consensus for change I had a choice, not edit the article or go along with the consensus policy. I chose to go along with the consensus.

That said please don't threaten me before you go to the talk page and check out things. In my edit summery I said your entry was was done in very good faith I and gave you a procedure to get Lady GaGa into the list. And what do I get for that, a threat to report me noticeboard!!!!. Please take any further comments on this matter to the talk page for the list where where are existing threads about Lady GaGa and inclusion policy!!!! Edkollin (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

0RR violation

• You changed "Europop" to "europop" on Alejandro
• SnapSnap sets it back to "Europop"
• You change back to "europop".

Those two edits are your only two edits to Alejandro, and are under a dozen edits apart in your contribution history, so I don't see how you could have been unaware that you were reverting a change. Goodbye.—Kww(talk) 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit was a blatant violation as well].—Kww(talk) 00:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Violation of 0RR restriction. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Request to unblock

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).

CharlieJS13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Based on the reason for my block, my actions were unacceptable and inappropriate, and I am gratefully sorry for any misdemeanour I may have caused. I was not aware of this however; I was merely trying to "tidy" up the articles and I was NOT removing any sources, and I wish to be unblocked. If I am unblocked, I request to be blocked from editing all song and songwriter articles. Thank you

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock 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
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Unblock request

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).

CharlieJS13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Based on the reasons for my block regarding Kylie Minogue and Alejandro, I was trying to keep the articles "tidy" by formatting "Europop" to "europop" and reverting "Synthpop" on the Kylie article which user Edkollin placed accidently without giving a valid reason why it was placed there, as the article states "discuss on the talk page before changing". This is my reason why I should be unblocked, and if possible if I am unblocked, I would like to be permanently blocked from editing song and songwriter articles.

Decline reason:

Although I can read the words "I do understand," and "I have read and understood WP:0RR, what you're saying doesn't appear to have anything to do with the rule, which doesn't give me any confidence that you understand it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

CharlieJS13 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You still clearly do not understand 0RR, and therefore you do not even understand your earlier block, let alone your current one. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I do understand, it's just I was trying to prove a point by making the articles as relaible as they should be. I AM aware of the implications of my earlier and current block, however I was "tidying" up the articles to prevent vandalism. And I have read and understood WP:0RR to avoid confusion. CharlieJS13 (talk) 13:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The terms of your prior unblocking were pretty specific: "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." If there's no exception for cleaning up vandalism, there's certainly no exception for "'tidying' up" articles. If you truly understand, then explain what you would do the next time you encounter a situation like that. —C.Fred (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another unblock request

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).

CharlieJS13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

After unintentionally breaching the ORR rule by changing parts of the articles on Kylie Minogue and Alejandro, I wish to be unblocked from editing and instead, I would like to be blocked from editing all song/songwriter articles. Having read and understood fully the terms of WP:0RR, I understand that the next time if a similar situation before I was blocked occurs, I will ignore any potential signs of vandalism, and not to revert anything even if it appears to be the case, even if there are indeed signs of vandalism, and that includes not undoing any older material. Therefore, I wish to have my rights and privileges back by being unblocked if possible, and I apologise for any inconvenience that this may have caused. Thank you. CharlieJS13 (talk) 21:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It was clearly explained to you that if you breached 0RR, you would be blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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 can't deny the unblock, as I am the blocking administrator, but here is my question: if you couldn't follow a simple instruction like "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", what reason is there to believe that you are capable of obeying any editing restrictions? This wasn't a particularly legalistic interpretation problem, you literally hit the "undo" button with this edit. How on earth was that "unintentional"?—Kww(talk) 21:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CharlieJS13 offer to be unblocked

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).

CharlieJS13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Having fully read the comment posted by Kww, I can admit that based on my mentorship rules and regulations, I did not fully understood the 0RR rule and that my actions on Kylie Minogue and Alejandro were unacceptable. However, having taken more time to understand WP:0RR, I must be more aware not to revert to any changes made on articles even if vandalism is a sign. I would therefore appreciate it if I can be unblocked from Wikipedia, and I am willing to cooperate more fully with the help of more experienced administrators should I experience any problems that may happen if I am unaware on what should I do if I spot anything suspicious. Therefore, I truthfully promise not to do it again, and I am willing to contribute to Wikipedia more fully if I feel that it will not get me into trouble.

Decline reason:

The conditions of the unblock above were unusually clear. You indicted you agreed to the very simple terms and read the applicable policies. You still can't seem to understand the difference between vandalism and a minor content dispute, so I can't in any way feel comfortable that you would adhere to any other agreements. I'm sorry and disappointed that you broke your word to the two administrators that went out of their way to give you a second chance. Kuru (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

CharlieJS13 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If he is unblocked, I will continue to monitor and enforce the original restrictions. However, I recommend against unblocking.—Kww(talk) 21:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Kww, I have now admitted that I was not fully aware of the 0RR rule, but I have now taken more time to read and understand it. I apologise for the inconvenience and confusion I have caused, as I feel Wikipedia is a great site and I so want to contribute more fully with admins like yourself, I just feel I need more help. CharlieJS13 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Pursuant to the results of the discussion noted above, you are hereby banned indefinitly from Wikipedia. If you wish to be unbanned, it may only be done by another community discussion (please request on this talk page that one be started on your behalf) or by appeal to the ArbCom as described at WP:BASC. Please consider reading and abiding by WP:STANDARDOFFER as it will improve your chances of having this ban lifted. --Jayron32 17:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)