User talk:QuietestMoments

Welcome

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! In your edit summaries for Crime of the Century (album), you seemed confused about Wikipedia's quality standards. To get a better sense of the style in which Wikipedia articles are written, I recommend you read over a few of Wikipedia's WP: Featured articles and WP: Good articles. The Dark Side of the Moon and Blonde on Blonde are good places to start. Happy editing!--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supertramp

The best course of action would be if all involved took it to the article's talk page and tried to reach a compromise. That may mean meeting the other half way. You may not get exactly what you want but the alternatives are a fruitless waste of everyone's time and likely to end in disappointment. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have posted on the talk page with bullet points that require explanations for removal. I am baffled as to why information provided with proper citations is being deleted without any explanation. Please have a stop by and let me know of any errors of judgement. QuietestMoments (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's more to adding things to an article than providing good cites (although this is of course important). You need to be sure that the content is neutrally presented, not giving undue weight to unimportant details, or indeed is properly relevant to the article subject. I believe part of the problem with your edits to Supertramp is that they overly emphasise one member of the band, at the expense of another. The fact that the two in question are also in dispute over a number of things makes things trickier. The Wikipedia article should therefore strive to give due balance to both impartially. If the facts are in dispute, then Wikipedia should report that. It shouldn't attempt to come down on one side or another, unless there are other, authoritative, third-parties that you can cite.

Ultimately this is only going to be resolved through discussion and compromise. Otherwise it's likely to end badly for both of you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Hodgson

Hi, I just wanted to apologize for my misplaced accusation of vandalism and blanket revert on Roger Hodgson. I had just gotten through reviewing all the recent edits to Supertramp and was running out of the time I had allotted for Wikipedia editing for the day, so when the first three changes I saw you'd made to the article were either incorrect formatting or factual errors, I assumed the worst. It didn't help that the Hodgson article has been the victim of a disproportionately large number of unconstructive edits in the years I've had it on my watch list. To top it off, I was in a bad mood after dealing with a particularly stubborn editor on an unrelated talk page. Obviously none of this is an excuse for falsely accusing someone of vandalism; I'm just telling you so that you know it wasn't personal and shouldn't happen again. As noted in my recent post to Talk:Roger Hodgson, I've gone ahead and restored several changes that you made which are clearly improvements to the article. Again, I'm very sorry about my snap judgment.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Give a Little Bit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Binksternet (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Logical Song. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.
You should explain your point of view at Talk:Give a Little Bit#Classics Live version where a discussion is underway about the promotion of Hodgson and his 2010 live album. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:The Logical Song by Roger Hodgson.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Logical Song by Roger Hodgson.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Give a Little Bit by Roger Hodgson.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Give a Little Bit by Roger Hodgson.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Give a Little Bit by Roger Hodgson with Childrens Choir.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Give a Little Bit by Roger Hodgson with Childrens Choir.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]