User talk:Tinbobimbo

Hi, I've updated the Yam Ah Mee page.I'm incontinent and wear Tena Slip Maxi (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Singapore Armed Forces ranks, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Singapore Armed Forces ranks. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Singapore Armed Forces ranks, you may be blocked from editing. You need to provide reliable sources to back up your changes, otherwise repeatedly adding original research is not acceptable. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Singapore Armed Forces ranks, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, first of all, you're blocked, and only for 24 hours, not banned. You'll be able to edit again tomorrow. Second, I (the admin who blocked you) didn't block you from "posting the truth"; I blocked you because you kept adding information without providing any sources and that was in a highly non-neutral tone. Our articles should not sound like the MoD websites; rather, they must be neutral, factual presentations. For example, your edits included the phrase, "AF's scholarship system is also a key pillar to SAF's public face." The phrase "key pillar" is POV (propaganda) language, not neutral language. Furthermore, I blocked you because you failed to actually discuss the differences in presentation of the article on the talk page. When someone reverts your addition, it's up to you to then go to the talk page and explain why you think your version is better. Then, all editors can hash out things like neutrality, reliable sources, original research, etc. So you were blocked for edit warring. On Wikipedia, we don't just keep trying to force an edit through; instead, we discuss out changes and reach consensus. On the OR issue, for example, your edit said, "As with other military organisations that face the common military dichotomies of officer vs NCOs/Specialists," do you have evidence that this is a common military dichotomy? In this case, Singaporean government websites would not be a reliable source, as they are not experts on world military structures (you'd need an independent source to make that claim). So, tomorrow, when you're unblocked, please go to the talk page and discuss the edits. If you attempt to just revert to your prefered version again, you'll be blocked again, and for longer. Finally, you must immediately stop the personal attacks, like those above (calling someone a "bitter farmer" or "sad farmer"). If you don't stop that, not only will I reblock you for longer, I'll also remove your talk page access so you can't continue the disruption.

Look, you can contribute to Wikipedia--you clearly have knowledge worth sharing. But you have to do it in a constructive, collaborative way, not through edit warring and insults. If you try to engage in discussion and can't get anywhere, we have all sorts of processes to help resolve differences. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Singapore Armed Forces ranks. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. BilCat (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who says its NOT verified?! Please read the link provided if you understand English.

February 2012

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

You were blocked in August 2011 and you are asking about that now? I suggest you look a bit further up this page and ask the person who blocked you. Their name and a link to their talk page is there. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm wondering if maybe Tinbobimbo was confused that your warning above was a block. However, my explanation for my block last summer are clearly stated above; if you (Tinbobimbo) have questions, please ask me. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]