User talk:TimTimBoBimBim

November 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia'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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lordtobi (✉) 09:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please do not engage in edit wars on Wikipedia, as they are harmful to all parties (see WP:EW). An editwar, especially one break the three-revert rule (WP:3RR) could lead to you being blocked from editing entirely. As Soetermans and I have already pointed out, your added content is not supported by any sources, not even the ones you added. If you wish to have something insterted that is disputed by other editors, discuss with them, either on their talk pages, your talk page, or the article's talk page, but leep WP:STATUSQUO for the time-being. Lordtobi (✉) 10:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at User:Lordtobi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 10:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Widr (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

edits were properly sourced and provided relevant and reliable information that other user apparently did not like, I suspect they work for the company the information was referring to TimTimBoBimBim (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't address your trolling. See also WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Right, of course @Lordtobi and I are employees of Bethesda. That you're vandalising our user pages in response makes perfect sense now. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is your disruptive editing, insertion of improperly sourced and unencyclopedic content, false claiming of being an administrator and experienced editor, user [talk] page vandalism, and constant removal of warnings also a product of Soetermans' and my employment at Bethesda? I wonder. P.S.: Your removal of Soetermans' comment concerning your unblock only adds to the preceding list. Lordtobi (✉) 11:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]