User talk:Toronto2005!

Toronto2005!, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Toronto2005!! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Toma Jafry

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Toma Jafry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. White Shadows ^{Let’s Talk} 23:37, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Serbian presidential election of 1990

The article Serbian presidential election of 1990 has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cenk Uygur

I reverted your addition of "Armenian genocide denier" to the lead of the article on Cenk Uygur. This matter deserves mention in the article, and it is already covered, including his apology, but just slapping it in the lead giving the false impression that this is his current view and the main thing he is notable for is not acceptable. It would have been better if he had never said what he said but there is a world of difference between somebody who holds reprehensible views when young and then straightens themselves out and somebody who continues to behave badly even after being called out and forced to confront their behaviour. I think you know where I am going with this... I have looked at your contributions since your block expired and they are not impressive. In fact, you seem to be continuing your pattern of very highly non-neutral editing. Maybe take a look in the mirror and straighten yourself out if you want to stay on Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones claims Sandy Hook was fake and has since reverted his claims. However that is still mentioned at the beginning of his article since there is immense evidence he made those claims nonetheless. Why do you seem to apply double standards? I don't do original research. I back up my claims, and if you need more evidence I'll more than happy to provide it.Toronto2005! (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Alex Jones, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how my edits where disruptive. Please me more specific, since I used sources to back up this specific piece of evidence.Toronto2005! (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are not here to play games with you. You are continuing exactly the same pattern of behaviour that you were blocked for before. I'm putting you back on final warning for general disruptive behaviour. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your political views. We are trying to write an encyclopaedia here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? I gave evidence and sources to back up what I said. I'm using the same standard on everyone.Toronto2005! (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't insert bias into articles, I use evidence to back up my claims and don't use original resources.Toronto2005! (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolicited advice: don't push it. General Ization ^Talk 01:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Can you further clarify your seemingly threatening statement?Toronto2005! (talk) 01:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No threat. Just advice from another, likely more experienced, editor. Your might think of it as a valuable commodity and start paying attention. General Ization ^Talk 01:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was add new content to his Wikipedia page regarding his PayPal ban. I really didn't do anything wrong. Nonetheless, I have no intention to "push it".Toronto2005! (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I really didn't do anything wrong", yes you did. And if you continue your behavior, you are very likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. And please don't play your silly little "what did I do wrong?" game with me. Read your own talk page. Everything you are doing wrong has been explained to you already. And don't play your silly little "All I did was..." game with me either. You were blocked for the reasons stated in the block notice. You were warned for the reasons stated in the warnings. Read them and pay attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good advice and you should definitely do what Guy suggests. I'd also suggest using the Page History link to review all the past warnings that you removed from this talk page. I'm not sure if you read them carefully at the time but they can also help you to understand what the problems are.

One extra thing I'll add is that, while sources are essential, having a source is not sufficient to make an edit valid. Valid sources can be used one-sidedly to give a slanted or misleading impression. A good example of this is what you did at Cenk Uygur. You used sources to show one part of the story, i.e. that he had said something offensive, but placed it far too prominently and left out any mention that he had apologised and gave a misleading impression that he still held and promoted the offensive opinions which he had in fact dropped and apologised for. You can't keep on doing that. You will find yourself trapped between two policies if you do. On the on hand you can find yourself accused of deliberately not maintaining a neutral point of view but if you keep on saying "I made a mistake" you will eventually run into questions about your ability to be neutral. In short, if you continue to edit in a non-neutral manner then people will assume that you either can't or won't. By that time, it won't really matter whether it is "can't" or "won't". You will have to go. So... Why not make some uncontroversial edits to some non-political articles instead? It will help you to see how Wikipedia works. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones apologized for Sandy Hook. Does that make a difference? Absolutely not, and it should be mentioned at the top of his article. Cenk Uygur denied the Armenian Genocide for decades and the fact that he somewhat backed off from his claim makes no difference. Stop applying double standards while at the same time accusing me of being biased.Toronto2005! (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the Guy Macon, I don't accept your tone. Go ahead and continue attacking me! Toronto2005! (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like me warning you that your behavior will get you blocked from editing Wikipedia, you will no doubt like actually being blocked even less, but that is where you are headed. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the way you are talking to me and I don't care how you try to justify it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto2005! (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have obviously confused me with someone who cares what you think. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When did I say that you care what I think? I simply don't appreciate the way you continue to speak to me. Take it or leave it.Toronto2005! (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 23:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Bishonen | talk 04:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Steve Quayle

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Steve Quayle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alex Jones. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 17:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not.Toronto2005! (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018 II

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. O3000 (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same guy that accuses me without any proof of being a white supremacist?Toronto2005! (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did anyone accuse you of being anything? This was not a "typo". Do not use misleading edit summaries again. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to fight with you. Just delete my account if it makes you happy.Toronto2005! (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:29, 4 October 2018 (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).

Toronto2005! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What's going on here? I'm very confused and upset by this Toronto2005! (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2018 (UTC)}[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:30, 4 October 2018 (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).

Toronto2005! (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Can you explain what I did wrong specifically? Because I've used this account in good faith Toronto2005! (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2018 (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.

Unblock discussion

You mean aside from the edit warring warnings and the sockpuppetry?-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANd the misleading edit summary? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Guy Macon has already covered this with you in an earlier post-- "And please don't play your silly little "what did I do wrong?" game with me. Read your own talk page. Everything you are doing wrong has been explained to you already. And don't play your silly little "All I did was..." game with me either. You were blocked for the reasons stated in the block notice. You were warned for the reasons stated in the warnings. Read them and pay attention." I'll leave this unblock request for another admin, 'cause I don't want to decline your unblock in so stern a manner.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The misleading summary was a minor mistake that was fixed. And I didn't defy the edit warring warning the second time.Toronto2005! (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And misrepresentation of what sources say... —Paleo Neonate – 00:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're not telling me what I did wrong that prompted this random block.Toronto2005! (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh-- please read all the warnings given before. edit warring and sockpuppetry. I remind you that further disruption may result in the removal of your talk page access.-- Dlohcierekim (talk)

Last edited warring was not violated for god's sake.Toronto2005! (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just wade in here and say that I am amazed that this account has lasted as long as it did. Even without the sockpuppetry, it was heading towards an indefinite block anyway. The misleading edit summary was the final straw that demonstrates intentional bad faith but the road to this block has been far longer than that. Looking at the contributions of the three accounts, I am dismayed to see how long this went undetected.

I am not familiar with the many articles about Eastern European politics which all three accounts were editing but I think it would be wise for somebody who is to check them over and see if they need any reverts. If their edits there are as bad as some of their other edits, and they have not yet been reverted, then they should be. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: Had not used this little tool I keep in my back pocket ere now-- Ho-ly Shit!-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DanielRigal, it's surprising that this account lasted as long as it did. I was just considering giving them a long block or maybe an indef for their timewasting bludgeoning at Talk:Alex Jones. You seem to be repeating the same timewasting here, quite frankly, Toronto2005!, when you complain again and again that nobody will tell you why you were blocked. You were explicitly blocked for being a sock puppet, with the term "sock puppet" a link to the policy where the concept of sock puppetry is explained. Dlohcierekim has now repeated the link. Are you genuinely incapable of following a link? Bishonen | talk 18:25, 4 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Arg-- back to basics-- the links are WP:EW and WP:SOCK. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

catching up

For anyone who, like me, came in late, please see Special:DeletedContributions/Toronto2005! (note the exclamation point.) Please see Toma1999! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) & TomaJafry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log).-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:00, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]