TorontonianOnlines
The article Rubyra1n is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubyra1n until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. v/r - TP 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
License tagging for File:Rubyra1n thumb.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Rubyra1n thumb.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Rubyra1n thumb.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Rubyra1n thumb.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Welcome!
editWelcome!
Hello, TorontonianOnlines, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the welcome! TorontonianOnlines (talk) 20:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Query
editAre you and @Tatzref: connected in some manner? Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have never heard of that name before. Who is that? TorontonianOnlines (talk) 07:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
edit
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 shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. 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 the 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.
AN notification
editNotice of noticeboard discussion
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
TorontonianOnlines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
The edits that I have made most recently regarding prominent Bolsheviks were all well-sourced and took me a good deal of time, effort, and research, and were reverted without good cause. My goal was to convey the truth, even if it may be uncomfortable. In regard to IE, I made that point once in October of 2017 and dropped it given that the consensus seemed to be otherwise and it seemed like a contentious topic. In regard to "editing history appears to be dedicated to identifying various individuals as 'Jewish'" - I do not understand how that could possibly be construed as disruptive when each of those edits was backed up by sources and was factual in nature. Even in the case of the Hugo Ball mix-up, I was willing to work on it, discussed the problem in-depth in a polite and diplomatic manner, and subsequently worked on finding more reliable alternative sources as the talk page of that article and the user I was discussing with can attest.
Moreover, I had never randomly edited the pages of an assortment of bankers alleging that they were Jewish. There was one case of Olof Aschberg who was, in fact, Jewish (as his Wiki page clearly states). Finally, I have an extensive edit history going back over a decade across a wide range of topics. It seems to be that only when I tried to shed some light on an inconvenient truth, in an effort that was backed up by sources and history, that I was permanently banned. I could appreciate the case against me had I acted impolitely, thrown out ad hominems, reverted well-sourced edits, and made disruptive, false edits that were not steeped in historical fact. I did none of that and thus I firmly assert that I did nothing wrong here. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The fact that you consider your problematic edits as an attempt to "shed some light on an inconvenient truth" (What's "inconvenient" about someone's ethnicity unless you have some prejudice against it?) tells me all I need to know. Unblock request declined. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
TorontonianOnlines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It's not my belief that it's 'inconvenient.' Rather, that seems to be the perspective of some other people here. Also, I fail to see how sourced, researched, and accurate edits can be 'problematic.' TorontonianOnlines (talk) 14:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yunshui 雲水 14:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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.
TorontonianOnlines (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
- Not clear what I have been blocked for given that I am being punished for making sourced and accurate edits.
- I do not see what damage and/or disruption I may have caused given that I did not engage in any sort of vandalism, sockpuppetry, edit warring, violating the three-revert rule, spamming, etc. I have merely provided well-cited and accurate edits on a particular topic. They were truthful but appeared to not sit well with certain people. That does not mean that the edits themselves are wrong.
- I have only ever made well-sourced, researched, and accurate contributions and would continue to do so. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
If you don't understand why you've been blocked, and you're going to continue to make the same edits as before, there's no point in unblocking you. Since we're not making any progress here, I've revoked your ability to edit this page. You may make further unblock requests via WP:UTRS, but I suggest you come up with a better unblock request than "I'm going to continue to do the same thing that got me blocked". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
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 have already been given a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:TorontonianOnlines, which explains why you are blocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've already addressed those allegations. If I haven't addressed some point, please enlighten me. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- The next reviewing admin will be the judge of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've already addressed those allegations. If I haven't addressed some point, please enlighten me. TorontonianOnlines (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)