Joseph201

I love to be friendly and caring to other people.

Nickelback

Hello there new guy - First let me welcome you to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy the place. I noticed that your additions on the Nickelback back article were deleted. I see a few problems as to why they were delete - first we cant use fans-sites for references as per WP:FANSITE - secondly you have added some quotes that were not sourced in the proper way. See also WP:QUOTEFARM as to there over uses. So remember we need to use references as this is an encyclopedia. We should include references listing websites, newspapers, articles, books and other sources you have used to write or expand articles. New articles and statements added to existing articles may be deleted if unreferenced or referenced poorly. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. If you have any question just ask. You may also find Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Help useful as it has many hints and tips.Moxy (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your confusion on what is "unsourced"

Here's some, for starters:

• Critics seemed to peg them as imitators of grunge, but the band seemed to differ. Chad Kroeger cited heavy-metal bands such as Metallica and Megadeth as his first influences. As for Nickelback's music, "Some people call it alternative rock, some call it this, that, or the other, but to us it's just straight-up rock and roll," he told Tom Sinclair of Entertainment Weekly. -- Unsourced.
• Reviewer Erik Pedersen of the Hollywood Reporter seemed to grasp the essence of the band. Reporting on a Nickelback show in West Hollywood in October of 2001, Pedersen noted that the band had mixed the hard rock sound that had taken the airwaves back around the turn of the millennium with enough melody to appeal to a wide audience. They seemed equally familiar with late-1990s post-grunge, 1980s metal, and Led Zeppelin-style 1970s rock. Proud to be hard rockers, the band "shrugged at subtlety and hissed at trendiness," Pedersen wrote. He also noticed that Chad Kroeger, with his striking long hair and goatee, had become a charismatic rock frontman, noting that the lead singer easily got the crowd to scream when he wanted them to and that his performance of a more sensitive song, "Too Bad," addressed to Kroeger's father, "drew shrieks from the numerous females in the crowd." -- Unsourced.

• The critical debate over Nickelback grew even more intense with the new album's release. Erlewine of All Music Guide noted that Kroeger evoked sadder emotions and the band responded with more acoustic instrumentation, but complained that the band still repeated the same chords, melodies, and harmonies too often; still played "clumsy, plodding riffs"; and included little humor in their lyrics. Meanwhile, Entertainment Weekly stuck up for Nickelback again. Reviewer Whitney Pastorek gave the album a B, praising the band's "richer, more diverse sound" and describing the single "Photograph" as "dreamy." -- Unsourced.

Additionally, as I said in the edit summaries, the endless listing of sales is unnecessary. A little is fine, (for instance, what was there before you started.) but more detailed stats like digital downloads and ringtones, belong in the discography article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

I am sorry to say that I see a bigger problem here. We have Copyright problems. A huge amount of the text is simply copy and pasted from the fan site. So we have 2 problems first the copyright problems and secondly a Verifiability problem. I have also now reverted the additions and believe they should not be re-added as per the above concerns.Moxy (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning

The three-revert rule WP:3RR

Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block. The three-revert rule states:

A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.

The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to block in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake.Moxy (talk) 22:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You have broken the 3 revert rule at 2 separate articles, both at Nickelback and at How You Remind Me. You have been warned. Know that if in Admin catches this, or if someone proceeds to report you, you would be likely to be blocked from editing, as you have already been warned of this before, by Moxy. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page How You Remind Me appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Europe22 (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Some advice

You'd accomplish a lot more if you spent less time "undoing" everyone edits all the time, and more time discussing things on the "talk" pages for the articles and talk pages for individual users. (like where I'm typing right now.) I don't know if you've noticed, but virtually every edit of yours has been undone by any number of other editors. If you actually want to accomplish anything, you should start working with people, not against them. Talk with others, learn the rules and policies, add actual edit summaries that explain what you're doing when you make edits, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 01:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

A case involving you has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joseph201.--SabreBD (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Joseph201 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ).

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Swarm ^X 22:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: After reviewing your edits, your block has been increased from one day to three days as you've added copyright violations. Swarm ^X 22:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm BLOCK? Well I DESERVED it for not being RESPONSIBLE and letting my little bro touch my stuff

First of all, I know am blocked which is good because now my brother can't make no more EDITS and by tomorrow he'll be out of my room which is good, thanks guys:)

That is the oldest, worst excuse there is. No one believes it. It's about as convincing as the "My dog ate my homework" line kids tell their teachers... Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yep, and we even have a pre-written, witty response ready to go for just that excuse.

Swarm ^X 22:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

No guys, it's fine really just let it go! You guys helped me a lot and I was not even planning to make an EDIT today anyways. But my nosy little brother "Johnny" is on my room today because we have to clean our rooms and we first have to start by cleaning his! So I'm in his room cleaning it and I told him that he can go to my room and use the computer I had the Nickelback discussion page and BAM! When I returned back I notice that he was undoing the edits that you guys undo it for me. So yea, by tomorrow he's GONE!

On your return can we get you to read over Help:Introduction to policies and guidelines/Content please. It will help in understanding how things work here. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Help is a great page to start from as-well.Moxy (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice and new block

This is to inform you that an incident you may have been involed with is being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Joseph201Moxy (talk) 02:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC) ‎

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for repeated copyright violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 02:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on When We Stand Together. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MuSiClOvEr (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I edit Wikipedia too, under the username Jeff G.. I noticed you recently removed some content from an article without explaining why. In the future, it would be really helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. Wikipedia is written by people like you and me, and we care a lot about the quality of the encyclopedia. Please help us make it better! Thanks,   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Your attitude will determine how smoothly things will go for you here..........

QUOTE " The State peaked at Number 6 on the Top Independent Albums charts check this magazine or check Billboard.com and you will see the highest that it peak was number 6! Do some research, before you come here".iTS NOT UP TO OUR READERS TO LOOK FOR THINGS ITS UP TO YOU TO CHANGE THE REF...READ WP:BURDEN

Edit Summaries

Edit summaries such as this are not really appropriate. When you change information, it is your responsibility to back it up with a source. Moxy rightfully reverted your initial edit because you didn't update the source. The old source supported the old information. Your new source supported your new information. There was no reason at the time to think that "more reseach was needed" because the old source is considered a reliable source in general, and supported the old information.

In short, you've already gotten on a number of people's bad side for your constant ignoring of wikipedia polices, your blocks, etc. An attitude certainly isn't going to help things. Sergecross73 msg me 19:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to your insinuation that I do not research the contents of my edits before performing them; quite the opposite is true. Please refrain from making wild claims of others' supposed incompetence if you have no evidence to support them. C628 (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Blind reverting

So, I see you're back to reverting people without explanation again, despite valid concerns in the edit summaries. I've seen you challenging other people's sources for charts on other music articles, so you obviously know how things work. So why act different when you're being challenged? − − Let's try again. Your source does not support the claim. Can you provide another source? Or show where in the current source that it is supported? Sergecross73 msg me 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to How You Remind Me. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. The source you are listing does not confirm a No. 1 position for the song. Please stop adding it unless you can find one that does. Toa Nidhiki05 21:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My little brother keeps doing that nonsense I told him to STOP and yea he is gonna stop.

Okay, not only have you been told that that argument isn't taken seriously here (much like "My dog ate my homework"), but it doesn't even make sense. Why would you think we'd believe that your brother randomly jumps on your account and blindly reverts random edits that just happen to be the times you're not following policies? Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

How would you know if I'm telling the truth or am I just lying? You don't no nothing about me so stop with your stupid reasons.

It is precisely the fact that we don't know that makes your excuse unusable. You have no track record of credibility, so we have no reason to believe that, outside of what can be proven, your brother did it. The excuse never works here for new members with a proven history of misconduct. Toa Nidhiki05 21:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph, I'm just letting you know that I, and most likely most other serious editors, would not believe such a reason, whether it's really happening or not. Sergecross73 msg me 21:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)