User talk:Tfoxworth

--Tfoxworth 21:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)==Russian Imperial articles==[reply]

Your edits to the Russian succession article and Grand Duke George's article are stylistically awful and wrought with errors. Why do you repeatedly revert subsequent edits back to "your version"? Charles 20:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion. It's obvious from yours you have no idea what you are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)

Excuse me? And you do? What is your source for demoting Grand Duchess Maria to "Princess" while maintaining her as head of the imperial house? What is your source for making members of the Hohenzollern princely line Royal Highnesses? What is your reason for giving George a lower Prussian title and style IN GERMAN while putting the RELEVANT Russian title and style in parentheses at the end of his name? What is your source for giving George the surname "von Hohenzollern von Preussen"? You have no idea what you are talking about. Charles 19:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. I do not maintain anyone to be the Head of the Imperial House. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Line of succession to the Russian Throne, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charles 21:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Or you will be the one blocked from editing Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

This is a perfectly valid article. Why are you blocking it?

Regarding reversions[1] made on November 16 2006 to Line of succession to the Russian Throne

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 21:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Charles blocked for violating the Three Revert Rule

Please sign your messages. And since he hasn't broken WP:3RR, why should he be blocked? William M. Connolley 22:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, and he keeps changing my article. I have presented all the possibilities and will continue to do so. Tim Foxworth

There is no ownership of articles here on Wikipedia. The article as it currently stands presents the alternate lines of succession with the titles each side claims for themselves. That is the proper way to do it. Charles 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The alternate lines IN YOUR OPINION! I presented all points of view- not just yours. YOU even kept some of my work in yours! Who do you think you are?

TF: *please* learn how to sign your messages, with ~~~~. Repeatedly not doing so is annoying and impolite. It is *not* your article. Being an expert - of you are - is wonderful. But you still have to keep to WP:3RR. Please read it carefully William M. Connolley 23:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine- I will change it once a day then. It is "not" his article either. Thanks for your condescending attitude by the way. I would like to request another arbitor. TF--Tim Foxworth 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Line of Succession to the Russian Throne, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. wikipediatrix 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to contribute- what did I do wrong? Tfoxworth

For starters, you've already been told to sign your posts with four tildes, not by simply typing "Tfoxworth". wikipediatrix 20:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- fairly new with this- is the attitude neccessary?Tim Foxworth 20:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can't even follow that most basic instruction, then yes. Since you hijacked the article by redirecting it to your own unsourced POV version, which you've already been warned against, then of course, yes. And since you've been warned on other instances, some of which you have removed from your talk page, then, obviously, YES. wikipediatrix 21:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow- and you never made a mistake. I didn't hijack the article- I tried to add to it. I haven't removed anything from my talk page. Lose the attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfoxworth (talk • contribs)

Do not make any major changes to Line of Succession to the Russian Throne without getting a consensus opinion on the article's talk page first, since your changes and additions are unsourced, POV, and extremely unencyclopedic. wikipediatrix 22:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vandal ought to be permanently banned. All Tfoxworth is doing is destroying encyclopedic content. Charles 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles' above comment is too harsh, in my opinion. Tfoxworth did not, originally, try to add very problematical things, and Tfoxworth's overall contribution actually is (almost) in limits of trying to be NPOV. Mistakes Tfoxworth did, were rather typical WP:newbie things. They got worse only in face of too harsh warring - and that is also a newbie trait. Both Charles and Tfoxworth need to discuss their views on Russian succession dispute in the relevant talkpage(s) with us others, preferably before they do edits that just anger the other. Shilkanni 00:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Shilkanni- still learning my way around in here- so far- not a place I think I want to return to.Tim Foxworth 14:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that any impartial observer can see that everything Tfoxworth did wrong, he continued to do after having it explained to him why he shouldn't do it. It's way past the point to play the "don't bite the newbies" card. wikipediatrix 01:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

third vandalism warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Line of Succession to the Russian Throne, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. wikipediatrix 01:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Martin

The poem is itself bloat. You did not bother to format it to make it even partially aesthetically pleasing and prevent it from being an eyesore on the article. I removed it once over the Summer, and again yesterday, and you have at no time explained the necessity of including the poem, when mentioning the poem (as it stands now) will suffice. Therefore, I have no choice but to remove the poem once more as you have at no time attempted to support the addition by writing on the edit summary, the article talk page, or my talk page (as I previously requested). Talk with me, we can work this out. Auror 16:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cluttering royalty articles

in the article Line of succession to the Romanian throne, you added middle names, unsupported additional surnames, and whatnot, to the names in list of family members of king Michael. I empathize with your desire to embellish and decorate, but still in my view such details are clutter, in an article where they are just small parts of one list. Could you kindly refrain in the futire from cluttering articles, please. By the way, are you not aware that the invented additional surname "de Laufenborg" is commonly laughed at (probably as that son-in-law's fantasy ideas of his promotion to nobility), and king Michael has not used it as part of his granddaughter's name, as far as can be detected from sources of that article. Henq (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate use of Hangon tags

The hangon tag is to be used ONLY to delay the deletion of speedy deletion candidates. Please do not use it for other reasons, as it has a specialized use, and if not used for that purpose it wastes the time of Wikipedia administrators. Thank you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This is to notify you that you have been blocked for 24 hours for stalking and harassing User:Charles, and tag-team reverting using a meat puppet. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this meat puppet would be whom? Tim Foxworth 03:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for For using or arranging to use multiple accounts abusively. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Black Kite 23:37, 11 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I only have one account, my wife has one account. We edit both the same and different articles. I believe this is due to harrassment by Charles, who has edited articles after myself and has long been proven to be an abusive editor as evidenced by the first comment on this talk page

Decline reason:

It seems you do not understand our policy on sockpuppets. It is inappropriate to have your husband join you in tag-team reverting. See the meatpuppet bit of WP:SOCK. — Yamla (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I edit the articles I work on, she edits the articles she works on. Please provide an example of an instance of "tag teaming"

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry is a side point. You are Wikistalking and harassing Charles. This is unacceptable, and it's doubly unacceptable for the two of you to be teaming up to do it (and it doesn't have to be on the same article to be problematic, it's part of a clear overall pattern). Mango juice^talk 05:36, 14 February 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

Actually, several of the articles in question I edited first, and he has harrassed me from my first edit to the present, and there is no "teaming up"- again, I ask for an example- which you should provide since you are basing your decision on these buzz words

Decline reason:

For example, your edits on February 2, where I vonH did a whole bunch of reverts of Charles, then apparently logged out, and you did a bunch of reverts. Just to pick a random article example, see List of Grand Dukes of Luxembourg where the only actions you made were to revert Charles and call him a stalker. You may have divided up the articles but you are editing with the same general goal, which is to harass Charles. As a matter of fact, I am going to extend your block to indefinite on this basis, and I'm going to protect this talk page as you've had your two appeals now. Mango juice^talk 06:03, 14 February 2008 (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.

Nomination of Line of succession to the former Georgian throne for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Line of succession to the former Georgian throne is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line of succession to the former Georgian throne until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]