User talk:Toolen: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:06, 22 August 2014 editNafsadh (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users5,930 edits General note: Unconstructive editing on Mughal Empire. (TW)← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:29, 22 August 2014 edit undoWifione (talk \| contribs)16,760 edits →August 2014: ceNext edit →
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 126:		Line 126:
	== August 2014 ==		== August 2014 ==
	] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of ] to ] because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks!<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> » ''] ] ]'' 03:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)		] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of ] to ] because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thanks!<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> » ''] ] ]'' 03:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for persistent ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. You were warned not to add any material without quoting reliable sources. You were blocked very recently for similar disruptive editing. On my , you said you simply forgot to add sources as you were busy. And post that, you have continued the same behaviour even after the clear warning to you. In one set of examples, from where are you getting dates and years such as , , , ? There is no reference to these years in either the article or in any of the references of the articles involved. And you have continued reverting and reinstating these years and similar dates in multiple articles. It's a similar behaviour that you have been showing on a growing scale. Please immediately stop such inclusion of unreferenced material, and include contentious and challenged material only after you have discussed them on the talk pages of the relevant articles and gained ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.  ] ] 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock -->

Revision as of 05:29, 22 August 2014

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrebd (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 December 2013‎ (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Basarab VI

The article Basarab VI has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Radu Ilie Haidăul

The article Radu Ilie Haidăul has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

Speedy deletion nomination of Grigore Brâncoveanu

Hello Toolen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Grigore Brâncoveanu for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Juhuyuta (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Grigore Brâncovenu

Hello Toolen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Grigore Brâncovenu for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Juhuyuta (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Constantin Cantacuzino (kaymakam)

The article Constantin Cantacuzino (kaymakam) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

Proposed deletion of Vintilă of Wallachia

The article Vintilă of Wallachia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

Proposed deletion of Mihnea III

The article Mihnea III has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Misplaced Pages policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Toolen. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Mabalu (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Hi - thank you for your contributions! Please note that you REALLY need to use references for your articles, no matter how short/basic they are. Mabalu (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Moro conflict not over

In 1996 the MNLF (Misuari)signed a peace agreement while the MILF and Abu Sayyaf continued fighting the Philippine government. Later the MILF under Misuari returned to the war in 2002 while Muslimin Sema's faction continued with the peace agreement. When the MILF started negotiating with the Philippines around 2008, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) split off from the MILF to continue the fight. The MILF's current peace agreement means nothing to both Nur Misuari's MNLF and BIFF as they are still war war with the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is also continuing its attacks as well.

The conflict is not over and you have also provided no sources for your assertion nor your reverts to my edit. BIFF is still fighting with the Philippines as we speak.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/90301/army-bracing-for-reprisals-from-biff-as-hot-pursuit-of-usman-continues

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/88978/abu-bomb-maker-usman-escapes-unhurt-in-military-biff-clash-in-maguindanao

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/22/14/dead-top-filipino-bomb-making-expert-alive-and-threat-military

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/06/09/14/3-hurt-magundanao-blasts-gunfights

http://online.wsj.com/articles/philippine-soldiers-killed-in-battle-with-abu-sayyaf-rebels-1403178867

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/366516/news/regions/10-abu-sayyaf-bandits-7-soldiers-killed-in-sulu-clashes

Rajmaan (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Don't complain to me. Complain to the guys who edited the Moro Insurgency Article. If you have proof that the war is not over, give it to them. My sources, however, say it is over.Toolen (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at East Germany. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You appear to be editing against consensus. Repeatedly. You have been reverted. Repeatedly, by several editors. You have restored it. Repeatedly. Not a good plan. SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

I merely wished to revert disruptive editing. The accusations of abuse are false. If I have done anything that would count as abuse, it was purely by accident, and won't happen again. My record on this site speaks for itself. I have been here for years, and I have never done anything that has required disciplinary action. As I said before, anything that may have warranted this action on your part would have been purely accidental on my end. I will confess that I have not fully grasped the uses and functions of everything on this site. Please reconsider this unwarranted action and give me my editing privileges back. I have reverted countless disruptive edits in the past, and will continue to do so should my privileges be returned. Furthermore, I am well aware of the reason for this block. My edits to East Germany are not unwarranted, nor are they disruptive. I presented my reasons for editing the page on the talk page. I presented evidence supporting my edit and an argument in favor of it. If I did anything contrary to consensus, it was not intentional, and it will not happen again.Toolen (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit-warring against consensus at East Germany. We consider edit-wariing disruptive. OhNoitsJamie 19:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

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.

{{unblock}}

I've voided the template as you're no longer blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toolen. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wifione 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Usage of IP?

205.232.106.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Toolen. Is this your IP? It made an infobox edit on June 30, changing the status line. I notice a similarity to your recent edits at Duchy of Aquitaine where you are mostly concerned with the status line of the infobox. For example you made this edit to the status line on August 13. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Austrian Empire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| status = Part of the ] (partly, 1804-1806), (] of the ]<br/><small>(partly,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Final warning before block

Toolen, one of your recent contributions to Duchy of Aquitaine has been reverted or removed, because it contains unsourced assertions. This has now happened multiple times. Please only add material ONLY if the same is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. If you add unreferenced information once again (even once again), you will be blocked for continuing to not heed the warning you got at the Edit Warring noticeboard for adding unreferenced information. Kindly desist from such behaviour immediately. Wifione 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm Nafsadh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mughal Empire because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! » nafSadh did say 03:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. You were warned not to add any material without quoting reliable sources. You were blocked very recently for similar disruptive editing. On my talk page, you said you simply forgot to add sources as you were busy. And post that, you have continued the same behaviour even after the clear warning to you. In one set of examples, from where are you getting dates and years such as 1817, 1803, 1771, 1803? There is no reference to these years in either the article or in any of the references of the articles involved. And you have continued reverting and reinstating these years and similar dates in multiple articles. It's a similar behaviour that you have been showing on a growing scale. Please immediately stop such inclusion of unreferenced material, and include contentious and challenged material only after you have discussed them on the talk pages of the relevant articles and gained consensus. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione 04:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)