User talk:Tommosimmo

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello, Tommosimmo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 08:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you're welcome! :D If you have any questions about Wikipedia you're free to either ask at my talk page or go to the help desk. Cheers and happy editing, Midorihana _(talk)_(contribs) 18:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Show some patience.[edit]

Posting a speedy delete tag on a freshly created category (three minutes old!) is inappropriate. I'm in the process of cleaning up the supervillain category. Every category starts with a single entry. Give a day at the very least. Doczilla (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the speedy delete is okay in this one instance because that's supposed to be a category, not an article. That does not change the fact that you totally jumped the gun by posting that speedy delete tag on an article mere minutes after its creation. Give a person a day -- heck, an hour -- to write the darn article. Doczilla (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even when a stub template is appropriate, you just don't tag an article when it is mere minutes old. The creator may have been in the process of typing the stub tag in when you tagged it for speedy deletion. Doczilla (talk) 05:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems kind of silly when you expect to be done within five minutes. Doczilla (talk) 08:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded - you need to show more patience![edit]

Or, HEY! I WAS WORKING ON THAT!

I recently created a page on the Cyber Knights Templar - the CKT builds of PGP are the only 3rd party versions of PGP (probably the worlds most well known email encryption software) which were based on the official PGP release and gained widespread usage - they are certainly notable - why did you delete the article such a short time after it was created?!!

I did mark the article as being a stub, so it should have been pretty clear it was going to be extended - please have a little more patience in future!

At the most, a {{notability}} tag would have been sensible

FFS though! At least give an article a day or so before trying to delete it! Moonradar (talk) 11:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonradar exactly makes Tommosimmo's point! This is an encyclopedia, so you've gotta say why the entity is notable ... richi (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading what I typed before replying to it - if the article hadn't been prematurely deleted, I would have had a chance to flesh it out some more. Deleting articles before anyone's had the time to write them is just damn stupid

I'm going to recreate the article - try not to delete it before I've written the title this time... Moonradar (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tubectomy[edit]

I am aware of the fact that I needed to cite reliable sources but inspite of trawling the Internet, I couldn't find any site that gave satisfying information. That was the reason for me not citing any source. I was hoping somebody more knowledgeable would do the needful. Thanks. dirty but clean (talk) 12:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Welcome[edit]

Thanks. --Tom Tresser (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valerian and porcian laws[edit]

When adding the {{copyvio}} tag you need to specify the url of the page you think it is infringing, using the form {{copyvio|url=http://www.some.com/page.html}}. Thanks, Rich257 (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Cheers for the welcome man! TommyXKR (talk) 20:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed the userboxes off User: Kvn8907. Hopefully, she won't mind.

By the way, what does your username mean?

Cheers

Tommy —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyXKR (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Anonymous (group)#External links[edit]

I can find no evidence www.cafepress.com/an0nym0us is an official arm of the Anonymous (group); nor can I see any purpose for its continuation in said articles' external links. If you disagree, please reply with an explaination. Nigholith (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Roxy Jacenko. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Tornado chaser (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't write in wikipedia that someone "has no ethics" or is "a narcissist", see WP:NPOV. You also added a whole paragraph with no sources. maybe you could say "this source has called her a narcissist" but I am not too sure about this. Tornado chaser (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guy Standing (economist). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Sam Sailor 09:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Guy Standing (economist), you may be blocked from editing. Sam Sailor 05:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Guy Standing (economist). Sam Sailor 16:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: Since when has Wikipedia been a place lacking of a little humour? The most disruptive thing is you reverting the edits. Its funny, it's a well known wikipedia gag and this has been going on for years. Just leave it be, it is factual and doesnt break any wikirule.

August 2018[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 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 ~~~~}}. Sro23 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am an upstanding member of the Wikipedia community and you have chosen to block me based on a ongoing wikipedia joke which has been ongoing since the start of wikipedia. You banned me without any consultation and I would appreciate being unblocked so I can continue to make edits to help the community. I am a recent changes patroller and wikignome. Tommosimmo (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit warring to insert a stupid joke, and this unblock request shows no appreciation of how inappropriate that is - and if it has been "ongoing since the start of wikipedia" then that only makes it even more disruptive and even more important to stop it. And no consultation is needed before blocking a clearly disruptive editor. If you make a new unblock request, I strongly suggest you make an effort to take this seriously. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2018 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here I am being serious... I still believe it is wrong to block a wiki editor, especially for an indefinite period of time, without consultation. My history as a wikignome, welcoming people to wikipedia, was not taken into effect. Please, I ask of you to unblock me so I can continue to be a contributing member of Wikimedia.Tommosimmo (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I see nothing wrong with the block and I'm rather concerned that you show no remorse whatsoever. You aren't going to be unblocked until we are sure you won't do this sort of thing in the future. On the other hand, that's really all we are looking for here. Yamla (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2018 (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.

Note that you were given multiple warnings. There was plenty of consultation. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2018 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm sorry daddy.... ive been a bad bad girl.Tommosimmo (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not a serious unblock request. Especially for a block for inserting an immature joke into an encyclopedic article. Max Semenik (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2018 (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.

I'm revoking your talk page access. If you are unwilling to take this seriously, there's no reason for anyone else to waste our time with you. Assuming your current request is declined, I suggest you take advantage of WP:SO and you will have to use WP:UTRS to do so. You will be eligible for unblock consideration in six months, assuming you do not engage in any block evasion in the meanwhile. At that point, you will have to show that you are treating this seriously and we could trust you to not behave in this manner in the future. --Yamla (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]