User talk:Tomtom33

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tomtom33 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=your reason here |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=your reason here |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=your reason here |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

to the bottom of your user talk page to request unblocking. You must state a reason for this, and the block can then be discussed. Our guide to appealing blocks might help you in composing a persuasive unblock request. If Tomtom33 is not blocked, your IP address (58.175.202.7) or range may have been blocked. Please check here. If this is the case, please copy and paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page.

This user is asking that their autoblock or shared IP address block be lifted:

Tomtom33 (block log • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • user rights management • checkuser (log))

IP address: 58.175.202.7 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • unblock • checkuser (log))
Blocking admin: Sarah (talk • blocks)
Block message:

[[WP:Edit war|Edit warring]] or violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]: has been returning since 2008 purely to edit war over the [[Griffith Central]] article.

WARNING: If you were blocked directly then you are using the wrong template and your block will not be reviewed since you have not provided a reason for unblocking. Please use {{unblock | reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} instead.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, or when you need checkuser assistance, please place {{subst:Unblock on hold-notification | 1=Tomtom33}} on the administrator's talk page. Then replace this template with the following:

{{unblock-auto on hold | 1=Sarah | 2=<nowiki>[[WP:Edit war|Edit warring]] or violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]: has been returning since 2008 purely to edit war over the [[Griffith Central]] article. </nowiki> | 3=58.175.202.7 | 4= | 5=~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting decline reason here with any specific rationale. If the decline= parameter is omitted, a reason for unblocking will be requested.

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=58.175.202.7 | 2=<nowiki>[[WP:Edit war|Edit warring]] or violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]: has been returning since 2008 purely to edit war over the [[Griffith Central]] article. </nowiki> | 3=Sarah | decline=decline reason here ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock-auto reviewed | 1=58.175.202.7 | 2=<nowiki>[[WP:Edit war|Edit warring]] or violation of the [[WP:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]: has been returning since 2008 purely to edit war over the [[Griffith Central]] article. </nowiki> | 3=Sarah | accept=accept reason here ~~~~}}

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Griffith Central, did not appear to be constructive and has been 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. Bidgee (talk) 06:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Griffith Central

Hello, Tomtom33. You have new messages at Gazimoff's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Griffith Central, did not appear to be constructive and has been 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. Bidgee (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Griffith Central. 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. Bidgee (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to Griffith Central, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bidgee (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

to the bottom of your user talk page to request unblocking. You must state a reason for this, and the block can then be discussed. Our guide to appealing blocks might help you in composing a persuasive unblock request. If Tomtom33 is not blocked, your IP address (58.175.202.7) or range may have been blocked. Please check here. If this is the case, please copy and paste the following text to the bottom of your user talk page. {{unblock-ip|1=58.175.202.7|2=<nowiki>[[

Blocked

I have blocked your account. A look at your limited edit history shows that since 2008 you have been returning periodically to resume edit warring over the Griffith Central article and trying to enforce your preferred version of the page. This is unacceptable and violates Wikipedia's editing and behavioural policies. I see on this page that you've been asked repeatedly to stop but continue regardless, refusing to engage in discussion. Wikipedia operates on a foundation of consensus so communication is mandatory, not an optional extra for editing our articles. Additionally, we have policies such as the 3 revert rule which prohibit the kind of editing you are doing and your content edits violate the verifiability and reliable sources rules. I cannot allow you to continue editing our articles in this manner, so you have now been blocked. Please understand that Wikipedia is a privately owned website with a range of rules and editing here isn't a right but a privilege which we reserve the right to revoke once someone shows themselves unwilling to follow the rules and unwilling to engage with other editors. Sarah 12:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this, I never said it wasn't reliable, it wasn't verifiable. While the Area News is Griffith local newspaper and could be classified as reliable but since it doesn't cite an article/news story it is not a verifiable nor really is it a reliable source. Bidgee (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{I have provided a verifiable source - the local Griffith paper - The Area News! Furthermore, I have actually written the entire article and am being banned from further editing. I know that the information is correct as it is me , the company I work for and with, and every item is factual. I find the person Bidgee to be over officious and should really let this go! I am not doing anything wrong here - the article is 100% written by me, is factual and barring me from using this site is farcical! True, I may not be as computer savvy as some, but this shouldnt be a reason to ban me from using the site!!!!!! }} t