User talk:Tom2123

September 2014

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Materialscientist (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Tupac Shakur— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Combs

Please refrain from your unconstructive edits including removing sources. In case of further need, place your comments on the talk page of the discussed article. Thank you MiewEN (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Hi, I'm touching base on your recent edits and edit summery's on Ready to Die. I just added a new link to the Q rating, since the previous one no longer has the content that it once did. The WikiProject Albums guide states that we should "keep a neutral point of view" with reviews, which is why Q is included here. For years now I've made contributions to this page, including the entire reception section, as well as the accolades table, which clearly lists the acclaim it's received over time. In short, Ready to Die is an album that's dear to me - I grew up with it. So no, I'm not trying to " DISCREDIT THE CLASSIC THAT THIS ALBUM IS".

In response to the 2002 Source rating in the review table, there's already initial and retrospect ratings for Rolling Stone, so there's no need to have this for another publication. The fact that their ratings are clearly stated in prose is good enough. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit waring

If you continue to edit war with me on the Ready to Die page, I will be forced to report you to an administer. Please use the talk page before making such edits. Ready to Die received a good article award a while back and it's very rude of you to just come a long and change things to your bias without discussing them on the album's talk page. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Ready to Die. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

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. 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.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Use Your Illusion II, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. RF23 (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Use Your Illusion I, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. RF23 (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Appetite for Destruction. Dan56 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to add the claim that it is the 11th best-selling album in the US, but the RIAA source doesn't explicitly say that. Dan56 (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you use a source "to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research" (WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Furthermore, there are several records tied for 1st, 2nd, 3rd place, etc. on that list. If the information--that it is the 11th best-selling album in the US--is important enough, another source should be out there that actually said it. Also, RIAA certifications are based on shipments to retailers, not individual sales (List of music recording certifications#Albums). Nielsen SoundScan would have information on actual sales and where it ranks. The source that says the album sold 28 million copies worldwide is Sky News, which is cited in #Reception and legacy. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should definitely be in the body of the article (the first paragraph of the section "Reception and legacy", for instance), and it could be in the lead as well, since the lead serves as a summary of important parts of the rest of the article. Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Hello, I'm Dan56. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Appetite for Destruction seemed less than neutral to me, so I reverted it for now. 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. Dan56 (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Neo-Confederate. 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. You deleted properly sourced material and then made a false claim to justify your action. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Neo-Confederate, you may be blocked from editing. See discussion page -- your comments, if actually sincere, make no sense. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Neo-Confederate, you may be blocked from editing. Hmains (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tom2123. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Tom2123. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! NOTNOTABLE (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at White privilege. Seems you have a small history of disruptive behavior... EvergreenFir (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert / notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Neutrality^talk 04:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Hillary Clinton email controversy. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Women's March on Washington. NickCT (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be disruptive

Hi! This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Women%27s_March_on_Washington&oldid=761280642 Was entirely disruptive. Please don't do that. If you want to add that it is called a 'sore losers' march you can find a reference for it and add that to the article. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. APK whisper in my ear 02:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. Alexf^(talk) 02:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]