User talk:TobyWongly

test

TobyWongly, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi TobyWongly! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Welcome![edit]

Hello, TobyWongly, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Jim1138 (talk) 08:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down[edit]

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.

Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thats why I was talking about including the truth if someone wanted to look around and get a blog verification. The fact you just deleted and hid my comment for article improvement speaks for itself.--TobyWongly (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted a few of your comments that had nothing to do with article improvement (just your opinions), and moved a few comments to their proper place before responding to them. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, serious warning here[edit]

You might want to read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and try out the Wikipedia Adventure to get a sense of what Wikipedia actually is. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did one gay porn shoot and didnt receive, the claim that he got AIDS this way is far more unlikely than than from the sharing of used needles for his Heroin addiction. I suggest you look into the facts or are you just anti gay? Talking truth but guess if you dont like it then you just claim POV--TobyWongly (talk) 03:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I've explained before, Wikipedia requires claims to cite professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources. We do not care what you believe on that matter or any matter, we don't accept original research. It is your responsibility to provide sources for your claims.

Also, the introductory section of articles summarizes the body, where the citations are included. Actually read articles before posting on the talk page about supposedly missing sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Didnt mention any Article summary yet another logical fallacy from you! Great how you didnt bother to read into the article and see POV claims with no reference! Actually read the articles before claiming there isnt any missing ref. Here it is again since you didnt see it in the section title when you replied and made a false claim.

"Tigers once ranged widely across eastern Eurasia, from the Black Sea in the west, to the Indian Ocean in the south, and from Kolyma to Sumatra in the east." Clearly you are not interested in removing this unverified claim!--TobyWongly (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I can only conclude that you're either trolling or you don't even know what you're doing. Either way, this site is not for you. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:15, 7 May 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).

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

Request reason:

your reason here TobyWongly (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Any more personal attacks like the one below and you will lose your ability to edit this talk page. And as Ian.thomson has been trying to explain to you, there is no place on Wikipedia for your personal opinions or speculation, Wikipedia is only interested in properly sourced material. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 7 May 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.

ian thompson was on my case because I pointed out in the discussion section that its far more likely john holmes got aids from sharing used needles for his verified heroin addiction rather than from the one gay porn (didnt receive) done shortly before his death. He claimed this was POV and the started harassing me from there (tho he didnt harass the person who wrote the opposing claim! that I was correcting) and he used several Logical fallacies. It seems to be an anti gay stance on his part. He had deleted my suggestion on the Faerie article (also destroying the section from wiki records) I was commenting about how it should talk about its features that are covered by the MTG patent to improve the article. He demanded that I should supply all the work in my comment section and supply the refs, I noticed he has not done this and its not expected of other users. When I pointed out other articles that have unverified claims eg in the lion and tiger articles, he got very upset and banned me. Whats happened to wiki!--TobyWongly (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were other problems that I could notice. Here is an answer I was writing on the Tiger article talk page when an edit conflict occurred (because of the removal of the thread, considered to be trolling). Your response to Ian there was uncivil and suspicious. It may be too late now to suggest changes, but here it is:

Please assume good faith (WP:AGF) instead of casting aspersions at other editors without clearly showing what should be changed. This sentence is indeed in the lead of the article (and thus should be a summary of the important article content), which Ian already expained. Please see the "Distribution and habitat" section for more information. If the lead sentence is wrong, explain why and suggest an alternative, instead of vaguely complaining about it. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate — 04:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]