User talk:Tomahawk1221

Work in progress.

X-Men Team Image

Hi, I noticed that you replied a while back to my motion to change the image on the X-Men page. I've uploaded the image I was thinking of and was just wondering whether you would support using this image instead of the current one.

I've also looked at the X-Men #200 cover and think that would also be a good choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comic master (talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to me..too small on the page though and I'd much prefer the 200 cover image..

That's fine, I think it could be a bit bigger too but I'm not sure how much bigger to take it. The 200 image is good too. This is Wikipedia, you can be bold. Comics (talk) 09:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Archangel3.gif

Thank you for uploading File:Archangel3.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - from N4

Thank you for your contribution to the RfC at Talk:List of X-Men members. I have now closed the discussion. Have a brownie! N4 (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2014 (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) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tomahawk1221. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for feedback on the List of X-Men members talk page

If you have time, your feedback is requested on the List of X-Men members talk page in the section about Other Status, X-Corporation, etc. As you know, we have massive sections of the page being removed, including things that have been debated and compromised on in the past, instead of being taken to the talk page first. Your thoughts would be appreciated. DeadpoolRP (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am disappointed to see that you have made two thinly-veiled personal attacks in edit summaries against exactly the same user that you promised to "walk away" from should a similar dispute arise in the future ([1] [2]). As you have twice broken the promise you made that was central to my decision to give you another chance, I am reinstating the block. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, to even approach making any changes to this page I have to navigate a completely lopsided environment. If you knew the true history of my interaction with hotwiki, you'd know he's not into collaboration, let alone taking ANYTHING to the talk page as I've pleaded with him to do. I have to defend any post with far-reaching comments to declare the validity of my edits.. Granted my first one was not sourced but the history of hotwiki undoing 100% valid and referenced edits is widespread. I understand how things can escalate quickly but there can also be constructive discussion, a benefit I'm not afforded here. Not sure how I made 2 "thinly veiled attacks" by essentially saying he has commandeered this page, thus degrading one pillar of wikipedia. He's not "nice" in any interaction. Trying to initiate collaboration has been a failure, trying to find a neutral arbitrator has been a failure, and unjustly being blocked is a reality. I simply felt I had to defend my 2nd sourced edit because I post completely accurate, non-vandalizing edits only to have a user not communicate and just trash valid work, and then the notion of being "attacked" and running to the authorities.. Idk man, I really meant that I would walk away, it was just this time I felt I had to go overboard to qualify my edits because otherwise it gets deleted with zero discussion. If I could get another chance I would honestly just post 100% sourced info and at this point never mention him once or have any interaction whatsoever (ie: no justification or defense in the edit description). If he unjustly removed legitimate contributions I would then seek a 3rd party since there is no chance of a talk page resolution, but I don't know how I would go about finding help for that. Since I don't see this infraction as all that personal of an attack, and I promise to have ZERO interaction with that user, I think a 2nd re-instatement could be granted with the understanding that there will not be a 3rd under any circumstances. My edits post stands because it's legit, I simply went too far in defending what shouldn't be discarded in the first place. You may say no, or even no to a 3 month suspension etc.. If I can rejoin edit privileges, I will also need to know where to go for fair conflict resolution. Be advised that any interaction with that user always ends with him being "attacked", go look at his other interactions elsewhere on wikipedia. This is not isolated to me.. I promise I will not say another word to that user nor will I conduct myself in that manner. Again, would you be willing with the understanding there will be no further tolerance after this point? I understand the implications, and I honestly don't need a "time out" to reconsider things. This will not be an issue going forward.

Please? Thank you for your consideration. ```` Tomahawk1221 (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem has never been the disputes or sourcing, it has been the way you conduct yourself during a dispute, namely making personal attacks. Have you taken any of the steps in WP:RCD before? In particular, have you tried obtaining a third opinion or making a thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard, after creating a talk page thread that the other editor refuses to engage with? What I usually see from you is escalation directly against the other editor instead of escalating within Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. --Chris | Crazycomputers (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2023 (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).

Tomahawk1221 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Chris, to even approach making any changes to this page I have to navigate a completely lopsided environment. If you knew the true history of my interaction with hotwiki, you'd know he's not into collaboration, let alone taking ANYTHING to the talk page as I've pleaded with him to do. I have to defend any post with far-reaching comments to declare the validity of my edits.. Granted my first one was not sourced but the history of hotwiki undoing 100% valid and referenced edits is widespread. I understand how things can escalate quickly but there can also be constructive discussion, a benefit I'm not afforded here. Not sure how I made 2 "thinly veiled attacks" by essentially saying he has commandeered this page, thus degrading one pillar of wikipedia. He's not "nice" in any interaction. Trying to initiate collaboration has been a failure, trying to find a neutral arbitrator has been a failure, and unjustly being blocked is a reality. I simply felt I had to defend my 2nd sourced edit because I post completely accurate, non-vandalizing edits only to have a user not communicate and just trash valid work, and then the notion of being "attacked" and running to the authorities.. Idk man, I really meant that I would walk away, it was just this time I felt I had to go overboard to qualify my edits because otherwise it gets deleted with zero discussion. If I could get another chance I would honestly just post 100% sourced info and at this point never mention him once or have any interaction whatsoever (ie: no justification or defense in the edit description). If he unjustly removed legitimate contributions I would then seek a 3rd party since there is no chance of a talk page resolution, but I don't know how I would go about finding help for that. Since I don't see this infraction as all that personal of an attack, and I promise to have ZERO interaction with that user, I think a 2nd re-instatement could be granted with the understanding that there will not be a 3rd under any circumstances. My edits post stands because it's legit, I simply went too far in defending what shouldn't be discarded in the first place. You may say no, or even no to a 3 month suspension etc.. If I can rejoin edit privileges, I will also need to know where to go for fair conflict resolution. Be advised that any interaction with that user always ends with him being "attacked", go look at his other interactions elsewhere on wikipedia. This is not isolated to me.. I promise I will not say another word to that user. Tomahawk1221 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you say above, you do not know where to go for fair conflict resolution. WP:DISPUTE has lots of information on how to resolve disputes on Wikipedia; your edit warring and using edit summaries to communicate are not recommended. Please read WP:DISPUTE and, in your next unblock request, please describe how you will resolve disputes in the future. I also recommend that you take time away from en.wiki: you can edit Simple Wikipedia, another language project or a sister project to show how you understand conflict resolution, or just take some time away from Wikipedia altogether to gain some perspective on editing collaboratively. Z1720 (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2023 (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.