User talk:Tobydrew8

Welcome!

Hello, Tobydrew8! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 02:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Ulverstone, Tasmania has been reverted.
Your edit here to Ulverstone, Tasmania was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Np_K9kzmSW8/TfIfPi0ZECI/AAAAAAAAAYI/D5OM1xDzc1s/s1600/2.jpg) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Hello, I'm Abi-Maria. Your recent edit to the page Hands to Myself appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Abi-Maria (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Hands to Myself. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Abi-Maria (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Hands to Myself, you may be blocked from editing. Abi-Maria (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Hands to Myself. Abi-Maria (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hands to Myself, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Abi-Maria (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Katie^talk 16:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Lady Gaga. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 23:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop adding unreliable sources! You have been warned and reverted time and time again not to add such sources. The next time you will add it I will report you to WP:ANI. I have raised a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Richest.com, do not add the source again unless the community decides its a reliable source. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look at the website and searched for coverage about Richest.com, and what I've found shows that it would not be considered reliable on Wikipedia. The website doesn't post where they get their information from, which is not a good sign of reliability. I also found an article where one of the people on their lists threatened legal actions against them, claiming that their material was inaccurate. Richest claimed that they took their data from CelebrityNetWorth, which isn't considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, so any website that uses this information wouldn't be considered reliable either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now something I'm noticing here is that whenever someone reverts your edits and states that it's problematic for various reasons, you go back and engage in a revert war with them. At no point did you go to the article's talk page and discuss the edits, nor did you post on the users' talk pages - or respond to the posts on your talk page. In the most recent edit war I see that there was a discussion on Gaga's talk page a few days ago, where the source was deemed unusable. Despite that, you continued to try to re-add the same material. I need to warn you: if you continue to edit war you will receive another block. If it looks like it's going to be an ongoing problem, the block may be permanent. This is an official warning: if someone reverts your edits more than once - especially if it's multiple people doing this, you need to discuss the edits on the talk page rather than continue to just continue reverting or adding the problematic data. Communication is key on Wikipedia and this type of editing is seen as disruptive. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do see where you posted on Abi-Maria's talk page... where your comments were openly hostile. Your comments during the recent revert war were also pretty hostile. This gives off the strong impression that you're just going to keep edit warring and being hostile with other editors, so I'm going to block you for the time being. I don't see where you're actually taking any of the warnings seriously at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruptive editing. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be unblocked you need to show that you understand the following:

That comments like the ones you made here are unacceptable and can actually be seen as a personal attack.
That if someone reverts your edits more than once, that you discuss the edits on the talk page in a calm and rational manner.
That if there is a discussion on the talk page (or another easily found area) that shows that a source you're adding is unreliable, that you not re-add the content until there's been a discussion.

The edit warring and hostility are the two biggest issues right now and unfortunately the edit warring has made up a large portion of your edits. Before anyone unblocks you we need to make sure that you can edit responsibly and without attacking other people for saying or doing something you don't like - especially since the other editors appear to be editing well within policy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also recommend that if you are unblocked, that you go through WP:ADVENTURE or WP:TRAINING as a sign of good faith. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:26, 8 January 2016 (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).

Tobydrew8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have learnt my lesson after being blocked, I took things too serious, my edits are just supposed to be good faith edits but I can see where editors are coming from, I have read the guidelines and fully understand Wikipedia. I would like to be unblocked please.

Decline reason:

You didn't learn your lesson the first time you were blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:44, 23 January 2016 (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).

Tobydrew8 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have learnt from my mistakes. The only thing I want to do is improve Wikipedia. I can now accept that if my edits get reverted by an editor they obviously have a good reason and I will not start a revert war like I have in the past. I just want to contribute to the site and to movies, tv shows and celebrities I am passionate about. I definitely have learnt from when I was blocked, I was unaware I was about to get blocked as I didn't see my talk page, no notifications popped up on my talk page otherwise I would have responded politely to the administrators. My edits are always good faith edits, no harm or graffiti intended. I have read through the unblocking guide and the basic Wikipedia guide and I fully understand how to work Wikipedia now. Please, this will be my last unblocking appeal for a while if this once again gets declined and I will not persist to make them after this to show you I have changed. Please, I just want to be able to contribute to this great site. Tobydrew8 (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Under the circumstances, a standard offer approach could be taken in this case. PhilKnight (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2016 (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 not sure if it was an oversight on your part, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt; why no mention of your uncivil, borderline nasty, behaviour?

In both of your previous unblock requests, you've maintained that '[my] edits are always good faith edits'.

I'm not going to outright decline your block. Instead, I'd like to know what you have to say about the above instances (and any others like them). m.o.p 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I intended them to always be good faith edits, trying to keep everything up-to-date. I just want to contribute to this society on Wikipedia. Yes I did have a rage on one of my edits but I have far moved on from that. I just wish you could consider this in your final deciding. I just believed that it was Selena's third single as even her cover photo on Facebook said "Feat. the new single "Hands To Myself", and that many news sources did also believe that it was released as a single, I put it behind me hence why I didn't edit it once again after I was blocked. Tobydrew8 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, you still acted in the same fashion at other articles after the first block. If it was unacceptable then, we need to know why you thought that it would be acceptable on other articles after the block. You also claim that you had a rage on one of your edits, but this comes in the wake of you acting hostile on someone else's talk page. And I also note that this comment on another person's talk page wasn't very civil either. In other words, you've been blocked in the past for problematic behavior and when the block was up, you continued to act in a similar behavior elsewhere. Before anyone unblocks you we need to make sure that you can edit responsibly and with a cool head, without attacking others. In other words, there's every indication that if we do unblock you right now, you'll just go back to your same behavior. I'm not really certain that you can do this, at least not at this point in time. My recommendation is that you take a break from Wikipedia, about 6 months to a year, and then try to ask for an unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can never see if I have learnt my lesson if you don't give me a chance. I'm willing to be banned forever if I continue with the behaviour I have been doing before the block, I promise I won't. I only edit things to try and help and clearly if it gets edited back its not helping, I have now learned that. I don't want to wait half a year to a year, I want to help now. Editing is something I'm passionate about. I'm sorry my attitude has been vulgar in the past but I'm begging you to give me one more chance, and if it doesn't work then okay, block me indefinitely. Just one chance.. I have learnt my lesson and now I need to prove it Tobydrew8 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Tobydrew8. I have certain problems trusting your words. In the unblock request above, you say that "no notifications popped up on my talk page". While in reality, there were several warnings ([1][2]). So, are you willing to be placed under a strict one revert rule if I unblock you? This means that if your edit is reverted/removed/changed, you are not allowed to introduce it again unless you discuss it on the talk page with other editors and reach consensus? Vanjagenije (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You will also need to do this in a very, very calm and rational manner. This means no personal attacks against people and when you talk to people about why your edits are reversed, you need to actually ask why they're reverting your edits. This means that going on to people's talk pages and just saying the equivalent of "stop, I'm right" is not an option. You can justify your edits of course, but you also need to be open to hearing about why they reverted your edits. Here's my concerns here:

When your edits were reverted you kept reverting back, despite several people undoing your edits. This led into a revert war. You were warned about this in the past with the Gomez album's article, yet you continued with the Gaga article.
During this you didn't discuss anything on the talk page - especially since there was a post on the Lady Gaga talk page that specifically mentioned the source you were trying to add. When you did talk with others, you came across fairly aggressive as can be seen here.
Some of these warnings came with an attempt to explain the reason why they reverted your edits. However you never seemed receptive to hearing any of what they were saying, opting instead to insist that you were correct and they needed to stop what they were doing.

I'm also concerned that you only seem receptive until now, when you've been blocked permanently. A temporary block didn't convince you that your editing and attitude was inappropriate, so I'm really not sure that you can edit responsibly if we were to unblock you now. You say that you want a second chance, but the temporary block from last month was a second chance and you continued to aggressively edit war with other users. I just really have a strong impression here that if we unblock you, you'll only continue with your edits and receive another block - and there'd be almost zero chance of you getting unblocked after that point. As an editor you need to be able to collaborate with other users without being aggressive and when your mistakes are pointed out you need to learn them the first time, not after they've been pointed out multiple times and you've received a temporary block. Given that you've consistently edited in an aggressive fashion and haven't listened to policy so far, I don't think that an unblock would be wise at this point in time. I'd rather that you come back in 6 months to a year and request an unblock then, as that'd give you time to mature. Again, if you were to be unblocked at this point I think that there's a high chance of you getting re-blocked within a short period of time and you would almost certainly never be unblocked again. It's within your best interests to just wait a while before requesting a new unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My request to any incoming admin would be to decline the block and request that he come back in 6-12 months. I just don't think that he can be trusted to edit maturely after he's made so many similar, aggressive edits within a short period of time, despite multiple warnings and a prior block. If he is genuine, then taking time off will help him mature and reflect on what he's done wrong on here. An unblock just wouldn't be in his best interest since the likelihood of a reblock is high, given that he didn't learn anything from his last block about 2 weeks prior to my block. I don't mean this to sound harsh, just that I think that we're likely dealing with a very young editor here and it's likely that some time off will give him a chance to mature a little and give him a better perspective in general if/when he requests a new unblock at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]