User talk:TheTonyExpress

Welcome!

Hello, TheTonyExpress, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violations

Hello,

As a new user, you should read WP:BLP before editing articles on living persons. If you continue to add poorly sourced contentious info about living persons (as you did here), then you face penalties for this.Bless sins (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. poorly sourced material is unacceptable on biographies of living people. more alarming is the fact that you don't even seem to realise that you are continually reinserting contentious material from wordpress blogs. ITAQALLAH 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Abdullah el-Faisal. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. ITAQALLAH 21:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

if you do continue to restore contentious material obtained from obscure blogs to biographies of living people - as you appear to have stopped doing - then you will likely be reverted rather quickly. as a sidenote, wikistalking like this ([1][2] [3][4][5][6]) is also frowned upon, and i would advise against it. ITAQALLAH 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Hkelkar based on evidence found through a checkuser. It has also been noted that all of your edits have been reverts of other editors.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:34, 26 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not Hkelkar, and even a cursory examination of that user's edits shows no similarity to mine. The claim that all of my edits are reverts is false as well - see my edits to Hassan Bek Mosque where I have provided many requested references.

Decline reason:

Nevertheless, almost all of your edits are edit warring and consistent with being an associate of Hkelkar, even without checkuser evidence to which I am not privy. — Coren ^(talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (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).

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

Request reason:

could someone else please take a look at this? I am not Hkelkar, nor an associate of Hkelkar, and there is simply no similarity between the edits I've made and his - not the same articles, not the same topic area, not the same times. Neither the admin who blocked nor the reviewing admin have checkuser privileges, and if you are really concerned that IU am a sockpuppet of Hkelkar, you should run a proper checkuser on me. If the concern is 'reverting' - please complain at AN/I - but an indefinite block for reverting seems disproportionate.

Decline reason:

There are an awful lot of Middle East-themed edits in both histories, and I find it really interesting that an apparent new user with less than fifty edits seems to know Wikipedia policy so well. But what you're hoping the reviewing admin doesn't know is that we never run Checkuser to verify that someone's not a sock, at their request. To me, that's a dead giveaway that you are a sock or meat, you're hoping you've fooled us this time, and that you can get away with it. Not. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2007 (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.