Hello, Robintetley! 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 me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Accounting4Taste:talk 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Accounting4Taste:talk 18:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progress=

the review you are adding has been added to the article with no proof, and HolyMoly? is not a reviewer that follows the neutral review code on wikipedia. Look at the reviews of progress on the article e.g Q music, The Guardian and BBC music, they are all well known trusted and neutral sources of music reviewing. for future reference as well reviews are not mixed if every review published so far is positive and one review which no one has ever heard of says it isnt. please take this into account, and happy editing, regards Yids2010 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

progress

I've asked you repeatedly to source information and to stop reverting edits, if you change once more then proceedings will be started for your immediate ban from editing wikipedia Yids2010 (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

progress

like I said I am not getting into a editing war with you, the jls linking is not proof it is papers selling a story and not based on fact, we were told by Barlow and officially through polydor that it was due to high demand and by pushing the date forward adds a weeks more sales before christmas. that reason is the official reason and that's all that is needed, wiki is not a gossip tabloid influenced site. and I am completely impartial and will make sure that unsourced and irrelevant information is removed to protect the integrity of the article please leave that now or I will carry out what is mentioned previously. RegardsYids2010 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Qmusic is sourced, it doesn't link to take that.com.Yids2010 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies on the Q link my mistake. I also do not want to get into an editing war with you I just think that for someone who's impartial you appear to be very very partial. Why the threat? You do not own this page do you? Peace. By the way thanks for confirming the reason the albums date was brought forward. Valuable information surely. Take care.Robintetley (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Progress (Take That album), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. some jerk on the Internet (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Progress (Take That album). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Progress (Take That album). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but you must be mistaken. The quotes are indeed sourced as I've provided a link to the bands official site when the discussion I've quoted has taken place. You yourself ow whoever else has been removing my comments have used this very same link to verify the official announcement on the date change. Please explain further exactly what's wrong with what I've been adding because I can see nothing at all wrong with it. The article itself appears to contravene wiki's neutral policy and appears to have been set up and maintained by people with the specific intent of promoting Take That. If this is not true could you explain why anything I add that's not PR speak is removed? Many thanks.Robintetley (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Progress (Take That album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. I have told you to stop adding it , you have repeatedly added without discussion, please do not add it again , use discussion its not reliably cited for wikipedia Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me but you're absolutely out of order. I've explained that what I'm adding is verifiable and have added a link to the page in question. What exactly is wrong with that? An answer would be nice since I'm in no way whatsoever vandalizing wikipedia according to it's own definition: Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Since my addition is not misguided or ill-considered but is verified by a link from Take That's official site (which you yourself have been using) you appear to be trying to scare me by threatening me because what I'm adding does not correspond with the un-biased and un-neutral perspective you are attempting to put forth. Why are you using Wikipedia to promote this band in very un-biased way. It is you who should be banned not me. Why are you saying I have continued to add without discussion when YOU are ignoring my questions here? Robintetley (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your desired addition

Your desired addition is to a forum WP:FORUM and not a wikipedia reliable location WP:RS to support any content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My desired addition is to Take That's official website which supporters are able to post comments to and not a forum. If the bands official website is not a reliable location every link to it should be removed from the article should it not?

My further question is why will you not allow any additions to this page that do not correspond with a public relations style non neutral promotion of the band? Thanks.Robintetley (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated additions

Please stop adding that rubbish, its not correct by any wikipedia policy at all, I am bored and can't be bothered to report you but I suggest you stop adding it as it isn't compliant with polcy and you repeatedly adding it about seven or eight times is tiresome. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offence but I really don't know what you are talking about. The reason you won't report me is because I've done nothing to be reported for. Recently you accused me of vandalizing the page which was a ludicrous accusation as I pointed out with quotes from Wiki's vandalism page itself. I've asked for specific examples of what I'm doing wrong and you continually fail to offer these but rather throw around veiled (actually un-veiled) threats. I'm expanding an article and adding more depth and quality content by using the band's official website as a reliable source. You clearly have some kind of PR agenda and only want positive things about the band on this page. It's a very un-neutral article and I'm simply trying to correct the spin. What's tiresome is you removing my additions which are perfectly valid and entirely verifiable. Have you been paid by Take That's record company to create and maintain this page or do you in fact work for the record company? I can see no other explanation to your very un-biased position. Many thanksRobintetley (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR note Progress (Take That album)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Progress (Take That album). Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- note - I have reported you to the edit warring noticeboard here, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Robintetley: I note you haven't reverted the page since you were reported, which is good. Please don't. Continual reverting and edit-warring will get you blocked, regardless of whether it is "vandalism". --Mkativerata (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd also advise you to find a secondary source for the content you are trying to add. Negative material has to be sourced to a reliable secondary source, not by drawing conclusions from comments on the band's own website. If you'd like to have a debate about it, have the debate at Talk:Progress (Take That album). But continuing to add the material over the reasonable objections of other editors will get you blocked very quickly. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of Progress (Take That album) for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at 24 hours. 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|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked because ~~(as the blocking admin was well aware)~~ I had already decided not to block this user. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Nothing I added to the article in any way went against any of Wiki's policies. The person that has set up this page seems to have a PR agenda in promoting the band and I assume they either work directly for or on behalf of the record company promoting the band. The only things they will allow on the page is positive and certainly UN neutral content. I've been adding a news item from Take That's official website (with verifiable link) along with fans unhappy reaction to a recent gig change. I'm baffled that I've been blocked when in reality the person running this page should be banned for basically setting up this page as another wing of a record companies promotional material. Many thanks for reading.Robintetley (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You had already been unblocked .... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Many thanks. But I seem to still be blocked and am unable to edit? Help? Robintetley (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Autoblock removed. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no block on this account. It is possible that you have been caught in an autoblock. Have another try at editing, say edit the sandbox. If you can, then fine: come back and remove the unblock request. If not, come back here and post the exact message you get when you are told you can't edit. If it is an autoblock we need information from there in order to be able to find the autoblock in the logs. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternately, you could have clicked where it says, Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.--jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Progress (Take That album)‎. 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|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mkativerata (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please tell me why I've been blocked...again...as I previously explained...this page is completely un-neutral and is being run as a PR exercise on behalf of Take That's record company. What I've attempted to add numerous times is well within Wiki's policies (otherwise I wouldn't keep doing so) and is fully verifiable with link included back to Take That's official site. It doesn't get much more unfair than this. Is wiki really turning in to a corporate wing of record company promotion? If it is what a shame. The people who have set up and are continually blocking me are the people that should be banned. I just don't know how to officially complain about them. Could you help me? many thanks.Robintetley (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry that you have not taken the time to the read our policy on edit warring, as it has been given to you several times now. As it does not appear that you have even glanced at our policies, and you are blaming others for your own inappropriate behavior, I see no reason to think that unblocking you would be useful. Kuru (talk) 19:01, 16 December 2010 (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.

Thankyou for this. After reading the section you pointed out to me on edit warring it would appear that myself, and the people running this page are both guilty. I attempted to insert a perfectly valid entry more than three times in 24 hours but only because whoever has set this page up continually removed what I added. Could you confirm that they too have been blocked? Basically I would not be if they had not continually removed what I added. They have clearly broken the 3RR rule many times. I've also asked the people running this page repeatedly what I've done wrong and they've never been able to tell me. Because noting I've added has broken any rules. They have an agenda on this page from a PR/record company standpoint and will not allow anything that doesn't fit this propagandist remit onto the page. When they remove what I add I ask why and explain why it isn't breaking any rules and they NEVER get back to me. All they've done is continually broken the 3RR rule, threatened me and now had me blocked. Help? Robintetley (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your WP:PA against users editing this page is becoming tiresome please follow WP:Civil. Many users such as Off2riorob and Mkativerata have told you why your edits are disruptive but you have ignored them and continue to revert the page. There is no PR agenda, we as users are removing your editions of biased comments that you found from forums on the Take That site and will continue to do so as they are not reliably cited for use on wikipedia . Virus101 (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. They haven't told me why they are disruptive that's really my point. They use the official Take That website as a reference point but when I do they remove it. I'm not in any way seeking to be disruptive but rather add depth and interest to a very un-neutral article that - if no PR agenda - the record company would wholeheartedly endorse. No negative reviews, no negative fan comments, nothing that isn't absolute praise is allowed on the page. I've asked for clarification many times but they have not provided it but rather said it is unverifiable. I've never meant to be anything but civil so apologise if I've come across like that. I remain confused but thank you for the dialogue.Robintetley (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-Your original desired addition was much worse than what you trimmed it to, this is the problematic content in the trimmed version -

This news upset and angered many fans despite an apology and the official website’s discussion pages were inundated with more than eleven pages of negative comments from people who’d arranged childcare and booked non refundable hotel accommodation.http://www.takethat.com/news/2010/12/progress-live-2011-new-uk-dates -

- The website is the primary website of the band and is as such only wikipedia reliable for simple comments about the band itself , as in WP:SELFPUB and perhaps WP:PRIMARY - the content you want to add is basically WP:OR original research..and is your personal counting of the forum pages and your personal opinion of the overall opinion of the comments posted there and then you add at the end a comment related to a not notable person that had posted in a forum post, totally not citable as far a this wikipedia is concerned. If you wanted to add content that reflects these comments you would have to find a report of the comments in a reliable report WP:RS - someone reliable commenting about it, not yourself commenting about it, we are not primary reporters we are reporters of notable reports. Also you repeatedly replaced your desired content in an WP:EDITWARRING way, the talkpage is where you should go if your desired addition is removed - after the first time not after multiple reverts. As someone who has very limited understanding of policy, what is wrong with taking the advice of experienced editors? nothing is there? I assure you, I do not like take that either, I am not a fan of theirs at all. All of our Album articles are similar to this one, they just add some track names and songwriter and a simple write about the album, usually there is not a lot of commentary or opinion on any album article as I have seen. If and when you return please consider taking advice and avoid simply re-adding your desired addition when experienced editors are removing it, ask them what is wrong with it, and read the policy and guidelines instead of thinking everyone works for the bands promotion company, that is totally mistaken. On return as someone else suggested, take it easy and follow WP:BRD - thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for taking the time to explain in detail. Believe it or not the pin has dropped as they say and I realise the error of my ways. Also believe it or not I love Take That I just genuinely believed this page to be set up and run by the record company because it was so overly positive it verged/verges on propaganda. I was simply trying to add a little shading to it. I won't repeat my mistakes and again I sincerely appreciate your time, your help and your advice. I also apologise.Robintetley (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, if your prepared to move forward in that vein and be willing to listen and take advice then when I bump into an administrator I will put in a good word towards your early unblocking. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I certainly am willing to move forward in that vein. In many ways, pardon my French as they say, I've been a dick. Thanks again for your help.Robintetley (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I left the blocking administrator a note regarding your comments and if and when he logs on he will likely have a read of the comments, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robintetley - you've now been unblocked on the basis of your undertaking to Off2riorob. Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]