User talk:Toolen

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabrebd (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 December 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Basarab VI

The article Basarab VI has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Radu Ilie Haidăul

The article Radu Ilie Haidăul has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Dudel250 Chat PROD Log CSD Logs 01:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Grigore Brâncoveanu

Hello Toolen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Grigore Brâncoveanu for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Juhuyuta (talk) 04:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Grigore Brâncovenu

Hello Toolen,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Grigore Brâncovenu for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Juhuyuta (talk) 04:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Constantin Cantacuzino (kaymakam)

The article Constantin Cantacuzino (kaymakam) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KJ^{«Click Here»} 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Vintilă of Wallachia

The article Vintilă of Wallachia has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KJ^{«Click Here»} 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mihnea III

The article Mihnea III has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. KJ^{«Click Here»} 10:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Toolen. 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! Mabalu (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hi - thank you for your contributions! Please note that you REALLY need to use references for your articles, no matter how short/basic they are. Mabalu (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moro conflict not over

In 1996 the MNLF (Misuari)signed a peace agreement while the MILF and Abu Sayyaf continued fighting the Philippine government. Later the MILF under Misuari returned to the war in 2002 while Muslimin Sema's faction continued with the peace agreement. When the MILF started negotiating with the Philippines around 2008, the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) split off from the MILF to continue the fight. The MILF's current peace agreement means nothing to both Nur Misuari's MNLF and BIFF as they are still war war with the Philippines. Abu Sayyaf is also continuing its attacks as well.

The conflict is not over and you have also provided no sources for your assertion nor your reverts to my edit. BIFF is still fighting with the Philippines as we speak.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/90301/army-bracing-for-reprisals-from-biff-as-hot-pursuit-of-usman-continues

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/88978/abu-bomb-maker-usman-escapes-unhurt-in-military-biff-clash-in-maguindanao

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/06/22/14/dead-top-filipino-bomb-making-expert-alive-and-threat-military

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/06/09/14/3-hurt-magundanao-blasts-gunfights

http://online.wsj.com/articles/philippine-soldiers-killed-in-battle-with-abu-sayyaf-rebels-1403178867

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/366516/news/regions/10-abu-sayyaf-bandits-7-soldiers-killed-in-sulu-clashes

Rajmaan (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Don't complain to me. Complain to the guys who edited the Moro Insurgency Article. If you have proof that the war is not over, give it to them. My sources, however, say it is over.Toolen (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at East Germany. 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. You appear to be editing against consensus. Repeatedly. You have been reverted. Repeatedly, by several editors. You have restored it. Repeatedly. Not a good plan. SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I merely wished to revert disruptive editing. The accusations of abuse are false. If I have done anything that would count as abuse, it was purely by accident, and won't happen again. My record on this site speaks for itself. I have been here for years, and I have never done anything that has required disciplinary action. As I said before, anything that may have warranted this action on your part would have been purely accidental on my end. I will confess that I have not fully grasped the uses and functions of everything on this site. Please reconsider this unwarranted action and give me my editing privileges back. I have reverted countless disruptive edits in the past, and will continue to do so should my privileges be returned. Furthermore, I am well aware of the reason for this block. My edits to East Germany are not unwarranted, nor are they disruptive. I presented my reasons for editing the page on the talk page. I presented evidence supporting my edit and an argument in favor of it. If I did anything contrary to consensus, it was not intentional, and it will not happen again.Toolen (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were clearly edit-warring against consensus at East Germany. We consider edit-wariing disruptive. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:57, 25 July 2014 (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}}

I've voided the template as you're no longer blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Query moved from talk page

Hi Toolen, I would like to ask for your help regarding one Philippine related article, if you have time to spare i hope you could help thanks!Solarpiece (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Toolen. You have new messages at Wifione's talk page.
Message added 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wifione ^Message 01:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usage of IP?

205.232.106.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Toolen. Is this your IP? It made an infobox edit on June 30, changing the status line. I notice a similarity to your recent edits at Duchy of Aquitaine where you are mostly concerned with the status line of the infobox. For example you made this edit to the status line on August 13. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Austrian Empire may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| status = Part of the [[Holy Roman Empire]] (partly, 1804-1806), ([[States of the German Confederation|State]] of the [[German Confederation]]<br/><small>(partly,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning before block

Toolen, one of your recent contributions to Duchy of Aquitaine has been reverted or removed, because it contains unsourced assertions. This has now happened multiple times. Please only add material ONLY if the same is verifiable, based on a reference to a reliable source. If you add unreferenced information once again (even once again), you will be blocked for continuing to not heed the warning you got at the Edit Warring noticeboard for adding unreferenced information. Kindly desist from such behaviour immediately. Wifione ^Message 17:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm Nafsadh. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mughal Empire because it did not appear constructive. 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! » nafSadh did say 03:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. You were warned not to add any material without quoting reliable sources. You were blocked very recently for similar disruptive editing. On my talk page, you said you simply forgot to add sources as you were busy. And post that, you have continued the same behaviour even after the clear warning to you. In one set of examples, from where are you getting dates and years such as 1817, 1803, 1771, 1803? There is no reference to these years in either the article or in any of the references of the articles involved. And you have continued reverting and reinstating these years and similar dates in multiple articles. It's a similar behaviour that you have been showing on a growing scale. Please immediately stop such inclusion of unreferenced material, and include contentious and challenged material only after you have discussed them on the talk pages of the relevant articles and gained consensus. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Wifione ^Message 04:59, 22 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I see how it looks, but I didn't just revert the edits made by other users. Note the differences between edits. 1771 was corrected to 1772 as stated in the list of rulers section (Shah Alam II to be precise) on the Mughal Empire article. The date is already mentioned in the article. I simply added it to the status box. I thought the events 1803 was in the article, but it appears I was mistaken. This is easily rectifiable, as I simply need to get the source from the Shah Alam II article, where the date and event is clearly mentioned. The same can be said about the Ahom Kingdom article. I had no idea the history section was that neglected. I have three sources that give the date 1817. I am looking at them right now. I was just about to add them when Nafsadh starting undoing my work on the article. I reverted the edits so I could add the sources, then you blocked me. You said you would be patient with me, and I told you that I would add the sources. Now I have the sources, and I'm simply asking you for a chance to let me add them. Please give me the chance to add them. Toolen (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Patience" is a 2-way street. Unfortunately, we cannot be patient when you continually edit-war. There are multiple articles where you have made edits, the reverted someone else more than once - you are fully aware that this is unacceptable in all cases; WP:BRD always applies, no matter how patient we are. The simple fact is this: you need to take your time during this break to collect sources, etc - any future block for edit-warring or disruptive will quite likely be your final block - patience only extends so far the panda ₯’ 09:36, 22 August 2014 (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.

Toolen, just yesterday my warning was very clear to you - that if you add unreferenced material even once again, you will be blocked. There are no excuses for repetitively claiming that the "sources are in front of my eyes" and "I can personally vouch for them" and "I was busy" and "I added the year by mistake". Toolen, for a person who has been blocked in the recent past for disruptive editing -- then repeatedly warned, then told at at the edit warring noticeboard that even one more revert will get you a block, then again given a final warning, then told that not one mistake will be tolerated -- you really do not seem to realise the gravity of the situation. You cannot disrupt this project by claiming personal guarantees. I am not going to unblock you. In fact, repeated editing behaviour like this would only see me increase the blocking duration. From this point onwards, you should not add any material without providing verifiable references. And when the material is contentious (any editor reverting you means the issue is contentious), you should immediately go to the talk page of the article to gain consensus rather than reverting an unsourced claim. As the situation stands, I'm not removing your block. Your unblock request of course will be reviewed by another administrator. In the meanwhile, please take the time to read up on what is meant by original research, verifiability, neutral point of view, and edit warring. Once you're confident you understand our sourcing policies, please resume editing constructively. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 09:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning before block

You have been blocked recently for disruptive editing, edit warring combined with continuously attempting to add unreferenced material, especially frivolous dates. Please explain this edit, which changed a date, removed a reliable source, added another source that has no reference to the date you have mentioned in your edit. Wifione ^Message 08:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Toolen's reply copied from my talk page. Wifione ^Message)

Why are you doing this to me? I didn't give you any lip for blocking me, I took it in stride, and my appeal attempts were done in accordance with the guide on appealing blocks. I did exactly what you asked. I provided a source to back up my edit. This was even discussed on the talk page. Yet, despite what I've done to avoid making the same mistake again, you're taking the side of this Garzakh fellow or whatever he calls himself? I was on the side of the majority, this time. The same user tried to do the exact same thing months ago. The issue was discussed on the talk page, and me and the majority of the other editors were in agreement that the 2014 date was the correct date. I even added the reference. I'm sorry if this sounds rude. I don't mean to offend you, but this time I knew what I was doing. I was even thanked by one of the other editors. There is no reason for me to be blocked again. My edit was in accordance with the consensus agreement that had been reached. Is that not what I was supposed to do? Did I not do what was asked of me? If so, then why the warning? Do you just not like me? Please explain. Toolen (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying Toolen. The reason I'm keeping a close watch on your contributions is because you have been blocked twice already for disruptive editing, and more recently for adding years without supporting references. Your background check is not in your favour. I have not blocked you yet. My administrative warning is quite procedural to ensure that you're able to justify the addition of the date, which look suspiciously similar to the dates you were adding previously without reliable sources. Kindly respond to the exact question I've asked above. Please explain this edit, which changed a date, removed a reliable source, added another source that has no reference to the date you have mentioned in your edit. Also provide me the diffs from the talk page of the article which support your contention that this issue has already been decided by consensus. If the diffs you provide prove the consensus claim, I'll remove this warning immediately. Thanks and best. Wifione ^Message 07:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would provide you a link to the discussion if I could, but it has been lost in the torrent of new discussions that have filled the talk page since then. Since this article is concerns the current war, new sections are constantly being added to the talk page. I believe that my discussion has already been archived. I'm have been editing and keeping tabs on this article since the merger with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The discussion concerning the establishment date occurred sometime before summer (I believe it was in April or May). The 2014 date was chosen based on the fact that, while Garzahk's sources were reliable, the ISIL did not qualify as a nation in 2006 or 2013. They were not in complete control of any geographic area, and were still just an insurgency. The areas they did control were held on behalf of the Syrian opposition, which was still allied with the ISIL at the time. It wasn't until the ISIL turned on the other rebels and took over Fallujah that they actually became a political entity in complete control of a geographic area, which qualified them as a unrecognized state. The takeover occurred on January 3, 2014, which was the Friday before the article sourced was published (Saturday, January 4, 2014). The source I provided was deemed reliable. The date is mentioned in the article as "Friday". Garzahk, who I believe is disruptively editing the article for ideological reasons and propaganda, later tried to argue for an earlier date, but in the end my edit was accepted. Despite this, in early August tried to change it again, which resulted in the revert I made. I was subsequently thanked by Worldedixor, who I'm sure will vouch for me if necessary. I wish I could provide more info, but I really don't have time to dig up an archived discussion, and I got other things to do related to my job. Thank you for being understanding, and I fully the necessity of the procedural warning. Thank you for the explanation. Toolen (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the talk pages of the concerned article. This is the only discussion with respect to the date of establishment. The concluding consensus clearly mentions the date of establishment as the year 2013 and not 2014. I repeat my query. Why did you put the year 2014 in the article, while removing a reliable source, and thereon claiming that talk page discussions reached consensus on the year 2014? Please explain if you were talking about any other consensus decision. Toolen, do please note, you have already been blocked twice this year for disruptively editing and attempting to add misleading dates to articles. Please clarify your edit. Wifione ^Message 07:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My strong suggestion: As it seems you've again gone against consensus and attempted to include a year that is not supported by talk page discussions, you should immediately revert your edit with respect to the date. You have been blocked earlier for unilaterally going against consensus. Kindly do not repeat the same mistake. Please revert at the soonest, failing which, I shall consider this a repeated attempt at disrupting the project. Wifione ^Message 08:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Opening a talk page discussion is perhaps the best move you could have undertaken on this issue. Well done and follow the consensus that emerges there. I'll keep a watch on the same. Best regards. Wifione ^Message 08:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sadly, as it appears to me, most of Toolen's contribution has been disruptive, controversial or against consensus. Although, he has been blocked for various periods several times, his course of edits has never rectified to better. It is sad to see that an enormous amount of energy and time of admins and constructive editors are spent to counter edits like these. Can Toolen please read more about Wikipedia guidelines, and please if you (Toolen) know there is some source to back your edits, wait until you can find and cite those sources. If you see some information on an article backed with sources, and you have a source with different information, please add notes addressing disagreements in sources, rather then simply changing the well known information. BTW, Wifione seems to be very patient with you. --» nafSadh did say 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not talk to me the way you would a child. I see someone has a high opinion of himself. I have nothing but respect for the moderators, but I will not take criticism from other users. I'm only going to tell you this once Nafsadh: you don't know me, and you have no authority over me. You're not the only one with achievements and a college education. I, too, am well educated, and I overcame many obstacles in order to be where I am today. I've been looked down upon, criticized, and mocked for much of my life, but I proved those naysayers wrong and surpassed them. Like you, I dedicated myself to the study of science, history, and the pursuit of knowledge. But there is one key difference between you and me: I don't advertise my achievements. I don't need to show off my degree, or the medals and other awards I've earned. The world will know who I am by my actions, not because of what a piece of paper or some shiny hunk of metal says. Now, before you respond, please understand that I'm not judging you. I'm not going to pretend I know you, and I'm not going to resort to petty insults, but I will say this: pride has been the downfall of many a great man, and those that feel that they are better than others tend to make many enemies. I pray that you will not make that mistake. Always remember to be humble. Take care, and God bless. Toolen (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from insertion of unreferenced dates such as [1], [2] and [3]. According to Wikipedia's policy WP:V, all edits must be backed up by reliable sources which allow readers to verify such added information. Regards--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toolen, please explain the above edits pointed out by Tomobe03. Kindly clarify on what references did you add the same (and even reverted the above mentioned editor). Thanks. Wifione ^Message 15:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I'm having trouble editing things now because my computer crashed on me. I've been using a tablet, but I'm not use to the touchscreen (I guess you could say I'm old fashioned). Fortunately, I currently have access to another computer, so I'll add the source.Toolen (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC) Update: Added source, as per instruction. Again, my apologies for not adding it before. Toolen (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hello, I'm Peacemaker67. Your recent edit to the page Independent State of Croatia 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. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Your recent editing history at South African Republic shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTEGRITY

Hello. Please stop violating WP:INTEGRITY as you did here and here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Toolen reported by User:Dodger67 (Result: ). Thank you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at South African Republic. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I did everything I was told to do. I discussed my edits in the talk page. I did my best to avoid edit conflicts. I sourced my edits. I did every single thing I was told to do by you the moderators. I didn't complain. I didn't cause any more problems. I'm not the one who has been edit warring. Why are you punishing me instead of zarpboer? He is the one who keeps reverting the edits. He is the one who refused to compromise or even try to reach a consensus. I would have reported him, but every time I warn them (which is the sites policy, is it not?), they beat me to it. Quite frankly, and forgive me for being so bold, the only reason I see you blaming me and not him is because of the incidents in the past. I don't know who you think I am, but I'm no troublemaker. Yes, I lack social skills, which causes me to come off as a jerk sometimes. For that I apologize. But I'm no troublemaker. Please unblock me. I'm not a jerk, I'm just anti-social. That's why I didn't discuss my edits in the past, and kept reverting without explanation. Please don't hold it against me. I'm sorry. Toolen (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be reverting several people, not just one. It is important to finish the discussion on the article's talk page before reverting to your preferred version; there is clearly not a consensus for your changes. If you feel you are at an impasse, there are many avenues to bring others into the discussion. Kuru (talk) 11:35, 23 September 2014 (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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Toolen reported by User:Dodger67 (Result: ). Thank you. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toolen. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistent edit warring, and for blatant sockpuppetry, evidently in an attempt to be able to continue edit warring without being blocked. I regard this as, under the circumstances, a fairly short block, in view of your history of blocks for edit warring and other disruptive editing, combined with the blatant dishonesty you have shown in this case. You may reasonably expect a much longer block if you ever do similar things again. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

What is this? First you accuse me of sockpuppetry just because some stranger who at the college I'm currently employed as an intern happens to have similar views and interests, and then you deny me the right to defend myself from said charges by blocking me for edit warring. I didn't even receive a warning this time, and I don't even know the reasons for the block. Furthermore, denying me the right to defend myself from the accusation against me is a mark against the fairness and credibility of this site. You know, despite my past transgressions, I had nothing but respect for the moderators of this site. I created this account for the sole purpose of contributing facts, preserving factual accuracy, and maintaining consistency between articles. In return for my efforts, I've been accused of vandalism and trouble making. Then, certain nameless users and moderators have the audacity to post on my own talk page that I've made NO useful or helpful contributions to this site. It wasn't enough for them that I was blocked, so they insulted me on my own talk page, so that I can see their insults everyday. Did they even care how much they offended me? Apparently not. One user even accused me of relying on Nazi sources. Is this the treatment I'm to expect from this site? Is this what I get for trying to contribute? Hurtful insults? It saddens me that it has come to this. I never wanted to start a conflict with other users. I don't even like arguments. All I wanted was to do was make sure that certain facts were not removed or altered due to personal opinion or bias. I may have made some mistakes, I may not approached this the right way at times, but I always had the best intentions. You know what? Fine, ban me for life. I don't care anymore. If everyone wanted me gone, they didn't have to insult me. I've had it. I can take being blocked, but doing so without warning, denying me the chance to defend myself from accusations, and insulting me? That is going too far. Goodbye.Toolen (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Given that you no longer want to be involved with this project, I'll leave your account blocked. PhilKnight (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2014 (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 see you blocked that other user. Congratulations! You just blocked someone who is completely innocent. I bet you just blocked the whole IP address, too. Brilliant idea. Block an entire college of potential users. Hope no one insulted them on the talk pages. Toolen (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I know I said I'm through, but I can't just sit by while you block an innocent user. You never gave me the chance to defend myself from the accusation of sockpuppetry. As I said before, that ip address no doubt belongs to the college campus where I work as an intern. It could be any one of the numerous students or faculty at the college. Leave Mitsukorina alone! While your at it, would you kindly explain to me why I've been accused of edit warring without prior warning? I don't even know what I stand accused of. How could you possibly expect someone to defend themselves without informing them of what they stand accused of? Toolen (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No valid reason given for unblock; WP:DUCK sockpuppetry. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:50, 20 October 2014 (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.

Block

Due to your confirmed misuse of multiple accounts, I have extended your block to 2 months. Mike V • Talk 02:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I see you've extended my block. May I ask why? Are you accusing me of something else now, too? Kicking someone when they're down, eh? How descent of you. Are you going to insult my intelligence again while you're at it? Call me a vandal? A rabble rouser? A Nazi? I used to love this site, you know. I was happy to contribute to it. I joined this site so I could help fight vandalism and preserve factual accuracy. Now, not only have you denied me the ability to contribute, but you also accused me of being the very thing I was trying to fight. But that wasn't enough was it? You then accused of further wrongdoings and then blocked me with no warning so I couldn't even defend myself from these accusations. Why? Does it amuse you to bully others? Do you like abusing administrative privileges? Do you enjoy tormenting other users? How honorable. I know now that I can't trust anyone on this site, yet I still can't ignore factual inaccuracies online. So I ask you once more to reconsider this block. Please, unblock me and the other user you accused of being me. I'm not a troublemaker. I'm not a vandal. I care only for factual accuracy and consistency between articles. Please reconsider. I beg of you. Toolen (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. PhilKnight (talk) 11:49, 31 October 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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]