User talk:Bertbert1

Welcome!

Hello, Bertbert1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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! Martinevans123 (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:1.joan-armatrading.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1.joan-armatrading.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bertbert1 changes to info on Joan Armatrading's page

You will see from my earlier comment on the talk page, under "LGBT Project", that I am no strong supporter of revealling facts about a person that the person him- or herself does not particularly wish to make public. But in this case the information is a fact, widely published in the public domain. I wonder could you possibly explain why you think it is not suitable for inclusion in this article? I would have thought that a commitment to a civil partnership constitutes some kind of "public statement" in itself? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have now removed this four times without providing any reason whatsoever, even in an edit summary. Please argue your case or stop. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This section should not have Joan and Maggie as the title. It implies that it is Joan and Maggie who are making changes without proof that this is the case. I'm changing the subject to my name.(Bertbert1 (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

That's fine by me. I'm sure that is perfectly proper - and it is your Talk page, after all. I used first names here to try and get your attention. I have added a welcome at the top with some useful links - but if you feel that you don't need it, or that it takes up too much room (as I myself did), feel free to delete it. I do hope that you will feel able to discuss your edits. I am intrugued as to your views on Joan Armatrading and what you think should be included in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please use an edit summary

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits 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. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bertbert1, it's important to dicuss changes such as this. If you want sourced information removed from the article, you'll have to explain on the talk page. Otherwise, you may be blocked for causing disruption. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Giant Snowman 16:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

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

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.
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. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 17:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Joan Armatrading, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by 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|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 18:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talking with other editors

Most editors will have a talk link in their signatures (mine is a blue "talk to me"). Click on it - you'll go to my talk page. Click on the "new section" tab at the top of the page to create a new conversation. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can also look at who made edits to the article by clicking the "history" tab at the top. For example, this is the history for Joan Armatrading. Each editor will have a talk link beside them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bertbert1. I'm answering your questions here to make it easier for you. You can also reply here if you want - I will watch this page.

First, every talk page on Wikipedia is not "live" in the sense that it's part of the article however any user can see anything and everything that's written on any talk page. There are no private communications on Wikipedia. If you have questions of a confidential matter you can email me but any discussion about the content of articles should stay public.

Second, there are no "moderators" on Wikipedia. There are administrators who keep things tidy and handle problem editors but they have no more say over article content then the rest of us.

Third, I am sorry that Wikipedia's communication processes are unclear. Every page on Wikipedia has a corresponding talk page where you can add your comments/questions. There's a tab called "discussion" at the top of each page. Clicking on it and then clicking "edit this page" will allow you to add comments. Alternatively, clicking any link named "edit" will allow you to edit a section. "Talking with other editors" is the name of this section. If you have further questions on how to communicate please let me know. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may email me at neiln.wiki@gmail.com --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be included because the writer does not have proof of information included in article

This note should NOT be added to any part of Joan's site. I have changed the words, long term girlfriend. Since Joan never speaks about her private life and the person who wrote the original article and the person who published it on Wikipedia does not have access to Joan's private life, it is therefore pure speculation on everyone's part that it is a long term relationship and should not be included. It might have been put in the original article, but that also is speculation and not based on knowledge and should not have been written in an article as if this was a proven fact. (Bertbert1 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Stop the edit war!

I've reverted you removal again, because you cannot simply resume your contested changes once your block is released. As your changes have been contested and you have engaged in edit-warring over them, you must now discuss it at the article's Talk page, not here! Just stating your claim here does not give other people a chance to reply, because they will not be reading this page. If you discuss it on the article Talk page, other people will have a chance to listen to what you say and respond, and that way we will get a consensus. So go and make your case on the article Talk page, and *wait* for feedback before you make any changes. If you change it again before discussing it, you will be blocked again, for longer, and possibly indefinitely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comment on the Boing! talk page - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one!

I saw your discussion at Talk:Joan Armatrading. You explained, people helped by doing some searching, a consensus was quickly reached, and the article was edited - and because it was properly discussed, nobody should revert it now. Nice work :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Armatrading

You need to bring this up on the article talk page or at WP:BLPN because, as it stands, the article reflects what is said in the sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of text about "Joan Armourplating"

Hello, I just noticed the message to Neil that you wrote three months ago on removing the text about the nickname "Joan Armourplating" from Armatrading's page. I originally added the text, but I would've been happy to remove it if I'd noticed your message. I did not add that text with any vindictive intent; I thought the (derogatory?) nickname was worth mentioning because it seemed so common per a simple Google search. As it turns out, the text was later removed, and I had no objection to that. If you can find me a source that talks about how she received that nickname in school (I can't find one on the Internet, but that doesn't mean anything, as I'd say about 1% of 1970s news articles are indexed on the Internet at the moment), then feel free to tell me about it. If you'd like to suggest improvements to the article, here are three ways to do it:

Write a message at Talk:Joan Armatrading. This is the preferred method, as everybody who is interested in the article will see it.
Write to me at my talk page.
Email me at grahamwpjazi.net, in case you don't feel comfortable using Wikipedia talk pages.

Joan Armatrading is one of my favourite musicians, and I want to make her Wikipedia article as comprehensive and accurate as it can be, while respecting her privacy, as we should do for all biographies on Wikipedia. Graham87 06:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it'd be good to add that to the article, if you can find a source for it. Graham87 14:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Joan Armatrading the first British female singer/songwriter black or white to have international success

I've copied your message to the talk page of the Joan Armatrading article. I'd like to change it per your message, but unfortunately that change would directly contradict the cited source. Graham87 14:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message there. There is no need to notify me about changes that you make to the Joan Armatrading page or its talk page, because I have Armatrading's article on my Watchlist. Creating a watchlist makes it much easier to keep track of changes to articles that interest you, and I highly recommend that you start one of your own, if you haven't done that already.

To reply to messages on article and user talk pages, the usual practice is that the message is indented by adding a colon in front of it. See Wikipedia:Indentation for more information about that. I've indented your recent mesage at my user talk page. In the case of the Joan Armatrading talk page, the indentation was getting a bit crazy, so the way you replied there was fine. Graham87 07:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]