User talk:19andy91

Welcome!

Hello,, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

It seems one of the anti-vandalism bots was reverting the helpful edits you were trying to make (probably because you were also adding an example image). I hope everything is straightened out now. Happy editing. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Related
Are you related to ? Simply south (talk) 12:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

National Express East Anglia and the West Anglia Franchise
''from the NXEA?'one' talk page. it just occured to me that when the name is changed the west anglia franchise will be lost even tho im not sure if its just known as the anglia franchise but on the same topic the great eastern name will be lost personaly i think they should keep the franchise names and just rename the franchise National express Anglia keepin the great eastern and west anglias franchises known for the future generations and naming the trains national express west anglia and national express great eastern and it doesnt split liverpool street between different tocs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 19andy91 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe your right........ but that is nothing to do with the article. Wiki is not a forum. Please also sign your messages after using 4x "~" Thanks, Btline (talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

One
Hi! Please do not add bad images to the 'one' article, replacing good quality ones. If you wish to experiment with images, use the sandbox. Regards, Btline (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

National Express East Anglia
Please don't update articles until the company has actually changed its name. I don't feel it is appropriate to start a new article on the company either because it isn't a new company, rather One is simply being renamed. This is what should be done to the article as well. One isn't going to disappear, it is only being renamed, everything else stays the same. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need to rush to change this and certainly no reason why this has to occur before the actual rename occurs. Wikipedia articles should reflect the current reality, not the future. To change it now is to misinform readers by having incorrect articles.


 * This change is completely different to the GNER to National Express East Coast change. Whereas National Express East Anglia will simply be the new name for one, National Express East Coast is a completely separate company which won the franchise to run the East Coast Main line route after GNER had it revoked by the government. Adambro (talk) 18:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're latest comment on my talk page is noted and this is addressed above. National Express East Coast was not the new name for GNER. Adambro (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wait until midnight I'd say. Adambro (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 18:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR Warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''' ACBest Dog and Bone  Have I reverted an editby you, and got it wrong? Tell me! ''' 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd note that I whilst I agree with the above, rather ironically, ACBest has himself been warned on a number of occasions for edit warring and as a result of his edits has been blocked. I'd reiterate the comments above that users are encouraged to discuss changes they object to rather than just constantly revert each other. Not doing so will lead to blocks preventing users from editing or protection of the page to prevent anyone from editing it as appropriate. regards. Adambro (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note that you will be blocked if you continue to ignore this and simply revert changes you object to rather than starting a discussion on the article talk page explaining your position and waiting for others to comment. Adambro (talk) 22:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that having reviewed your edits to this article I feel compelled to block you in violation of the above. Adambro (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/19andy91 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. RFBailey (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reset, and lengthened your block to 3 days, since you were obviously avoiding the block by using an other account. -- lucasbfr  talk 15:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/19andy91 (2nd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. RFBailey (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Block lengthened
For ongoing sock puppetry, the block on this account has been lengthened. If sock puppetry continues, the editor may be permanently banned. Battling with other editors is not effective. Please stop. Jehochman Talk 16:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/19andy91 (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. RFBailey (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
This account is indefinitely blocked, at least until the sock puppetry stops. Jehochman Talk 18:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

A proposal
Hi Andy, let me introduce myself properly. I am Gwernol. I am an administrator here at Wikipedia. More importantly, I am a regular editor of UK railway articles. I would like to help you and see if we can resolve the current unfortunate situation. Your contributions so far have generally been very useful, and I think together we can work out a way for you to return to editing Wikipedia. I certainly want to see that happen.

The first thing we should discuss are "sockpuppets". This rather odd term refers to one person using more than one account here at Wikipedia. In general we ask people to use only one account. This makes it much simpler for people to work together. In particular, we do not allow users to create a second account if their first one is suspended (what we call "blocked") for any reason. Unfortunately you have now created three such accounts: Andrew1980, 123andy321 and Eddy774. So the first thing is, please do not create any further accounts. If you do, I'm afraid we will have no choice but to ask you not to edit Wikipedia at all. Trust me, this is not what I want to see happen.

Of course none of this would have happened if this account had not ended up blocked. The problem with this account arose because you were "edit warring". You made a change to the C2C article and then ACBest decided to change it back. Normally what happens at this point is that the two people who disagree will discuss the change at the talk page and reach a compromise which is then added to the article. Unfortunately, you just changed the article back to your preferred version. ACBest then "reverted" your change, you reverted ACBest and so on. This repeated switching back and forwards between two editors is called edit warring. It isn't good for the article, which is constantly changing, and it isn't good for you since this continual "war" will never end. So we have a rule called the three revert rule which says no one editor can make the same change to an article more than 3 times in 24 hours. This rule is remarkably successful at preventing edit wars and helping everyone to find good compromise solutions to problems.

Unfortunately you and ACBest both broke the three revert rule on the C2C article, and you were both blocked from editing for 24 hours as a result.

While I appreciate that this is frustrating, its actually extremely important that we all abide by the basic rules of Wikipedia. Its a collaborative project and we need to work together if its going to succeed. My own experience is that by working with other editors, articles get much better. I hope you will be able to experience this too.

So that's what happened. Now I'd like to propose what happens next. First, we have to block all your "sockpuppet" accounts, so Andrew1980, 123andy321 and Eddy774 are all indefinitely blocked. You should not use those accounts again, nor create any new ones.

Next, if you agree, I will reduce the block on this account to 5 days. This means that you won't be able to edit Wikipedia again until next Monday. This means that you can continue to make constructive edits again at the start of next week. I would like to help you with your editing: I've been around Wikipedia for four years now, so I'm pretty familiar with how it works and the best ways to really make an improvement to articles. I think that together we can really help improve some of the railway articles.

Does this sound like a good compromise? If you agree to this I will reduce the block as noted above and I can drop you a few thoughts on how to avoid trouble and edit articles. Just edit this page and leave a message below.

Many thanks and truly, good luck, Gwernol 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah That sounds good i agree i just found it annoying that people kept deleting what i put with out reasoning and thank you for this chance--19andy91 (talk) 18:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Great. I'll set the block to lift on Monday. I agree its annoying when people revert your edits, which is why its important to discuss these issues - they can usually be pretty easily resolved. Most of the edits you have made have been very helpful. You are always welcome to ask me questions, either here or (once your block lifts) on my talk page. I'm here to help in any way I can. Best, Gwernol 18:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Evading block without logging in
I notice you are trying to evade the block imposed on your account using IP address. Wikipedia is a community project to write an encyclopedia and Gwernol's message of 27 February 2008 should be seen as an opportunity for you to engage with the project here. If any part of our policies or practices are unclear to you please leave a note here. The block was imposed in order to encourage constructive contribution, not block it. However, you need to engage with us first. MRSC • Talk 13:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Come on...
Look, Andy, take some advice from these people! Stop creating spam accounts/evading blocks by logging off etc. Stop edit warring. And finally sign your posts with 4x ~!

If you do these things, guess what? Yes- you will be unblocked, and will be able to edit Wikipedia! It is not difficult to understand!

Regards, and happy editing in the future!

Btline (talk) 18:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:28-02-08 1256.jpg‎
This is a great addition to the article. Would you be able to add the required details to the image page of what licence you are releasing the image under please. Thanks. Adambro (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Colours comment
I just noticed your comment to another user. Maybe you want to check out WT:Rail. Simply south (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope you found the answer you needed. I added NXEA colour to articles instead of NXEC colour so it is possible to set a different colour for the two franchises. Other editors made the decision as to which colour each should be. MRSC • Talk 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:27-01-08 1324.jpg
Hi 19andy91!

We thank you for uploading Image:27-01-08 1324.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Onerailwaylivery.jpg
Hi 19andy91!

We thank you for uploading Image:Onerailwaylivery.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation. This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Sarfend east
If you feel a new title is appropriate as with Southend East for Southchurch Village railway station, you: I have corrected the move error. I leave you to correct the links. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * do not create the new article by a copy&paste - you use a move operation
 * and preferably you fix the incoming links to the article - especially in templates.