User talk:Tomas Gilbfarb

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article John Francis Hemenway, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 21:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to John Francis Hemenway. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to User talk:Uncle Milty. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Uncle Milty. WAYNEOLAJUWON 23:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did at Tebson, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pol430 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm willing to assume good faith that you are not vandalizing, however the article you created appears to be based on false sources (I could not find any of the authors who wrote the cited references). Can you please explain your edits? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 25 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

Ok I'm sorry about the insults and catty name calling. I PROMISE not to do it again. It's wrong. I welcome you checking my edits if you unblock me and PROMISE not to use such an attitude or name calling. Plus, can I be unblocked to take care of some business at ANI over this "Tebson" article? By the way, I am NOT the author of the Tebson article, I just came across it after it was tagged as a speedy deletion request. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Sorry, too little, too late; you continued after warnings, when you could have asked for advice from the editors you abused. And it isn't clear that your contrition is unconditional. As an act of mercy to an inexperienced editor, I will reduce your block to 24 hours so you can deal with the Tebson article and discussion (although I have little hope of you making any headway) and I try to assume good faith, but I will say this: please take a little time to get used to our ways, and you won't have such conflicts in the future. Discuss rather than abuse, please. Rodhull andemu 23:41, 25 November 2010 (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.

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomas Gilbfarb for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll respond to that after I'm unblocked. Thank you. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users for a period of 48 hours. 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 ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. If you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Wayne Olajuwon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. It's inadvisable to come straight off a block and attack another editor. Permanent blocking can be arranged, if you prefer. Rodhull andemu 01:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC) Rodhull andemu 01:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand how I personally attacked anyone. Can you please refer me to the specific statement? Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Eagles. Tomas Gilbfarb (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2010 (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).

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

Request reason:

This statement [4] is neither harrassment nor a personal attack so I should not be blocked for it. The statement is one of truth. Just look at Wayne Olajuwon's contributions and you will see that he is childish, power-mad, dense, and everything I said he was. I was just letting him know that in a straightforward manner. It's not as if i called him a "dickwad" or anything. Since I did not make any personal attack (I know when I'm wrong and I would apologize when I am, like last night) I should be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Those are clear and unambiguous personal attacks. After seeing this CU result, and your recent pattern of edits, it's clear that you're the sock of a returning troll. Kuru (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2010 (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.

You know full well what you posted to User talk:Wayne Olajuwon; it's in your history. But given that another admin has blocked you for a short time on the basis of similar attacks, I see no reason not to uprate your block to indefinite since you are not getting the point. Ask for unblock if you like, but recently unblocked editors should surely realise that their behaviour will be under particular scrutiny, and in that regard, you have only yourself to blame. Rodhull andemu 01:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Others might tolerate that kind of abuse; I won't. Rodhull andemu 01:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. WAYNEOLAJUWON 01:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing admin: please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomas Gilbfarb for socking concerns from this users as well as the personal attacks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomas Gilbfarb for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. WuhWuzDat 17:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]