User talk:Tmhm

October 2010

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did to Turkish invasion of Cyprus, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Constantine ✍ 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I move the page to the appropriate title as per the UN documentation. I do not expect fanatical Greeks to be fine with it so please keep your block threats to yourself. Tmhm (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 17:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(UN RESOLUTION 353 (1974) 3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus) - This is the NPOV. Those who enforce the Greek POV upon WP is violating the WP:NPOV Tmhm (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you move a page maliciously, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to the page Mesut Özil appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 18:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I have made 2 edits that are perfectly documented, one by UN document, one by relevant links. I do not know why I am considered engaging in edit warring and not those who reverted my edit without arguement. This is very disappointing how some WP admins favours one side of views and consider everything else vandalism. I would like my block to be reviewed and my permissions reinstated. Thanks.

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=I have made 2 edits that are perfectly documented, one by UN document, one by relevant links. I do not know why I am considered engaging in edit warring and not those who reverted my edit without arguement. This is very disappointing how some WP admins favours one side of views and consider everything else vandalism. I would like my block to be reviewed and my permissions reinstated. Thanks. |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=I have made 2 edits that are perfectly documented, one by UN document, one by relevant links. I do not know why I am considered engaging in edit warring and not those who reverted my edit without arguement. This is very disappointing how some WP admins favours one side of views and consider everything else vandalism. I would like my block to be reviewed and my permissions reinstated. Thanks. |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=I have made 2 edits that are perfectly documented, one by UN document, one by relevant links. I do not know why I am considered engaging in edit warring and not those who reverted my edit without arguement. This is very disappointing how some WP admins favours one side of views and consider everything else vandalism. I would like my block to be reviewed and my permissions reinstated. Thanks. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}