Sorry I didn't think to do that. But I really just figured out a couple important things with Wikipedia and wanted to remove the clutter.--TyrusThomas4lyf09:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
You have broken the WP:3RR, which is a blockable offense. Instead of revert warring, reach a consensus on the talk page. Trust me, it is a much better solution. Any more reverts may lead to a temporary block. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You have been blocked 8 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Normally, 3rr violations result in 24 hour blocks, but I felt that you should have an opportunity to respond to your RfC before it runs for too long. Do not start revert warring again upon your return as I am sure another admin won't be so lenient. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
RFC/USER discussion concerning you (TyrusThomas4lyf)
Don't delete other people's comments. It is not acceptable even if you feel that they are inaccurate. Instead, respond in the response section. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
About the trivia, it did seem to me that there has been an overabundance on trivia on some article, but I'm cool with them for now (if anything, they can always be deleted down the road). Other than that, it certainly seems that Howard is having a huge power trip with this article. I mean, I'm trying to reason with the guy and to let him know that his way may not necessarily be the best way, but he won't listen. This is actually my biggest wiki pet peeves, users who tweek articles all by themselves. It isn't just his article after all. Besides, his rationales about the old formats ranks among the silliest complaints I've ever heard on Wikipedia. This whole thing is getting ridiculous, and it's getting worse thanks to Howard's stubborness. I don't mean to diss the guy, but his actions make absolutly no sense to me. Dknights41100:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violation the three reverts rule on the Michael Jordan article. Your previous block was short because of your pending RfC; presumably you had sufficient time to respond to it between the time that block ended and the time you resumed edit warring. You may resume editing again when this new block expires, but continued edit warring will result in even longer blocks without further warning. Discuss your changes on talk pages when questioned, do not ignore other users, and do not edit war. KafzielTalk00:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
False. This message did not even appear before. Talk on the discussion page. Until you have proven your argument you have no point.--TyrusThomas4lyf02:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion
Hi TyrusThomas4lyf. I was asked to have a peek at your contributions on this article. I'd like to ask that you do a couple of things: (1) please let discussion finish on Talk:Michael Jordan before editing the lead of the article regarding whether he is the GOAT and (2) please don't delete talk page messages left by others on Talk:Michael Jordan. Thank you -- Samir02:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, it seems to simply be a case of the editor who contributes the most, Quadzilla99, being stubborn and wanting things "his way", even if they go against providing the most accurate biographical definition possible. He has yet to provide support that backs up his claim of this issue being POV.--TyrusThomas4lyf02:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I should also note he is probably mad because Quadzilla99 filed the RFC against him, which by the way, was backed up by numerous people, myself included. Aaron Bowen02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
What am I lying about? I changed something because an argument was not yet proven. It still has not been proven... at ALL. Where does it state that one person dictates what an article should say? FACT is that Michael Jordan is widely considered the greatest of all-time. I am still awaiting those several major reference/sources that do not regard him as such. They have never come.--TyrusThomas4lyf02:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's not one person it's several. Also, consensus is reached by discussion not by edit warring and reverting, also note that I consider the above mention of me a personal attack. As I pointed out on the RFC I went out of my way to be nice to you. Quadzilla9903:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Tyrus, even a cursory review of your contributions shows a history of personal attacks and difficulty cooperating with other editors. Should this pattern of editing continue, it is likely that you will continue to accrue blocks (even to the point of an indefinite block). My strong suggestion to you is to (1) double check each talk page edit that you make from now on to ensure that you are not attacking any other contributors and (2) for a little while, disengage from editing articles that have led to conflict with other editors. Hope you take this advice to heart -- Samir03:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
READ THIS: YOU HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A SINGLE LOGICAL REASON AGAINST THE SAID WAY OF RECOGNIZING THIS PERSON. EVERY SINGLE SOURCE NOTES HIM AS THE GREATEST. WHAT IS YOUR REASONING CONTRARY TO THAT? DO YOU INSIST OF HAVING IT SUCH A WAY JUST SO YOU CAN HAVE A STAR NEXT TO AN ARTICLE?? THAT MAKES THE WHOLE INTEGRITY OF WIKIPEDIA MOOT.--TyrusThomas4lyf03:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's a "personal attack"? LOL it's obvious that you just have a vendetta against a poster. You have made false accusations against me that dive much deeper.--TyrusThomas4lyf03:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion
I gave you a chance, and you've reverted to personal attacks, which, in edit summaries, still constitute personal attacks. I've blocked you for 48 hours for personal attacks, and strongly suggest that you desist from the same when you return -- Samir03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I haven't reverted to personal attacks. You'll need to provide me with evidence. Otherwise your block is unjust. Also, whatever happened to the freedom of speech? Is that allowed on an encyclopedia board?--TyrusThomas4lyf03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are you fucking kidding me? And Tayquan did not insinuate and falsely accuse me of things previous to the fact? That user made false accusations against me, hence he "personally attacked" me as well. I can't believe you would ban someone over that trivial comment. Like I'm not even allowed to have an opinion.--TyrusThomas4lyf18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
First, you're blocked, not banned. Second, I didn't block you for that; I blocked you for a 3RR violation, and another user blocked you for personal attacks. Third, let's not pretend you've been a shining beacon of synergy on Wikipedia; this is only the latest in a long string of arguments and misbehavior. So I don't have much pity for you, and you really can't expect much from anyone else, either. It's much too late for crocodile tears. Stop being a dick, or keep getting blocked. KafzielTalk18:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You had no right to block me, seeing as how I did not "personally attack" another user. In fact, people have been doing more to "personally attack" me than the other way around. I didn't 3RR anything, so you are clearly full of shit. You clearly have a vendetta against a poster who's trying to have an argument, and no one can even respond to it, they just proceed with their ignorance.--TyrusThomas4lyf20:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I say again, I did not block you. Samir did. You asked for an example of a personal attack, and since nobody was answering you, I gave you one. The 3RR block from me was a couple of days ago, which is why I still had your talk page on my watch list; it has nothing to do with why you're blocked now. KafzielTalk20:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
That's not a sufficient example of a "personal attack", certainly not a blockable one. I repeat, are people not allowed to have opinions?--TyrusThomas4lyf20:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
How about "you are clearly full of shit"[2]? I could restart your block for that one, but I'm not going to. I suggest you take the time to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you're blocked. KafzielTalk20:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not really. We're having an argument on my talk page. You need to learn how to lighten up. I'm waiting to see how I personally attacked this user, and for the fourth fucking time, aren't people allowed to hold opinions?--TyrusThomas4lyf20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
What don't you understand? I didn't fucking make false accusations of other editors. Other editors falsely accused me. And how can you dictate what is "abusive" language? What is abusive to one is not abusive to another.--TyrusThomas4lyf06:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay, you know what? Now I am restarting your block, and extending it to 72 hours. So you'll definitely have time to read those policies I gave you. If you really can't even grasp the concept of civil conversation, then you'll never be able to edit here. But something tells me you're just baiting me, and that you could control yourself if given the proper motivation. Maybe not being allowed to edit for three days (and, during that time, having this be the last word on your talk page) will give you a reason to settle down. KafzielTalk12:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Um, no. It's not three against one, first of all. It's two completely biased posters against one who knows history and does his research. Reliable sources are listed right within the page, as you seem to have missed. The poster who actually listens changed his mind.--TyrusThomas4lyf23:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's not an official statistic, and has been removed by three different people stop reverting against consensus and you of all people are one to point out bias. TayquanhollaMy work23:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You have demonstrated that you have not read the discussion or the edit summaries. "Most championship rings" is not an official statistic, either. People were unfamiliar with this statistic in question, so that is why they were confused about its inclusion at first.--TyrusThomas4lyf23:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm talking about the link to Game Scores (whatever those are) in the See also section whihc you have reverted against consensus several times now. TayquanhollaMy work23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
See, so it's just your ignorance of what a Game Score is. Unfortunately for your case, Game Scores are a statistical analysis of a player's game. It's perfectly acceptable for encyclopedic content. You are too hasty in your reversions and deletions. There is no consensus, only some people who did not know what they are.--TyrusThomas4lyf23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't want to nitpick, but it's my understanding that after a test4, the next step would be to report the user, not give them another test4. Otherwise, it's not really their last warning. --Maxamegalon200023:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's not a "made up" statistic. It's commonly accepted. I don't know what your problem is. It seems that you're just here to instigate. Please learn basketball history before you make such dramatic edits.--TyrusThomas4lyf23:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're not "checking" anything. Hell, if you'd actually try "checking" something for once, you would know what the fuck a Game Score is. You're ignorant and instigative. Please stop polluting my talk page.--TyrusThomas4lyf23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
THANKS A WHOLE LOT FOR BANNING ME. THAT WAS VERY JUSTIFIED. I DIDN'T EVEN "DIRECT PROFANITY AT ANOTHER USER". UNLESS YOU CAN POINT OUT TO ME WHERE I USED PROFANITY AS AN ADJECTIVE TOWARDS THE USER OR THE USER'S NAME. I'M WAITING.--TyrusThomas4lyf01:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please learn what sourced info is. That is not sourced info. The other info you may be referring to is not notable in any way. It is an arbitrary statistical cutoff.--TyrusThomas4lyf01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
No it's not. Perhaps you are ignorant. I cannot do anything about that. How is it a personal attack? I'm waiting for a real reason.--TyrusThomas4lyf01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please don't tell me what a false warning is. To maintain consistency with you, I'll take that as a personal attack. You have conveniently decided to start at a test4 yourself. Perhaps I should take that as a second personal attack.--TyrusThomas4lyf01:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by continued violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, disregard for WP:CONSENSUS, edit warring, etc... The duration of the block is 2 weeks. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --Jersey Devil02:10, 20 May 2007 (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).
What have I been doing that is so out of line? Apparently I am not allowed to edit something if it is incorrect... I edited something that was incorrect. I left comments on the page's discussion page. There fails to be a reply for the citation to the information, and I know why this is. It is because the information is false. Whoever put it there in the first place was wrong/ignorant. How, exactly, does this constitute edit warring? This information was completely fabricated. It was made up. I know that I am right. There appears to be a vendetta against me, and I think that is unjustified.
Furthermore, I have been personally attacked several times, but apparently there has been no attempt to resolve that problem. I have been personally attacked several times by users Aaron Bowen and Zodiiak.
Furthermore, I was banned for a three revert policy, while the other perpetrator, who also reverted an article three times, was not. Where is the justice in that?
Decline reason:
Blatant personal attacks. Please take this time to calm down and to consider if you can remain civil and avoid edit warring while contributing to the Wikipedia. — Yamla14:48, 20 May 2007 (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.
That's an entirely different article which was not edited, so what are you talking about? Also, how am I supposed to remember every little thing?--TyrusThomas4lyf02:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Oh, really? What do you think of this from your own USER TALK PAGE at Zodiiak:
"Yeah, LOL...he's crazy. I don't think there's any point in trying to convince him otherwise. He doesn't realize how much work was put into that article. His obsession with Jordan is borderline inappropriate, LOL. Zodiiak 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)"Reply
"Wow. That guys a loose cannon. If he just toned down his attitude, limited his volatile word choice and biases he would be a solid contributor. Zodiiak 00:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)"--TyrusThomas4lyf05:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's still more, from the Career achievements of Dwyane Wade discussion page. "I can point out more seemingly biased edits but I'm just tired of your seemingly raging biases." ZodiiakDial Z 02:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I back up all my statements 100%. You biases on Wikipedia, your attitude, and your tone is completely boarderline crazy. I don't understand how you can direct vulgarity at someone and not expect someone to call you uncivil or a loose cannon. There are no personal attacks there. If you read carefully, you'd notice how I do think you have solid contributions but your damn attitude is terrible--you're crazy. Just tone it down. Even now you use vulgarity "what the fuck does that mean." It means to watch out, because everytime you're around you revert edits that were already discussed. It's exhausting dealing with you. I honestly believe you might be too young to understand what we're trying to tell you because even after being contacted by ADMINS telling you to tone down the attitude, you direct vulgarity at them. There's no place for that uncivilized behavior here. ZodiiakDial Z15:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
"As you can see, you are a liar." Get a clue Tyrus, talking about how crazy you are for attempting edit wars, reverting edits after consensus and trying to convince you that you shouldn't delete detailed information because of your own opinions without discussion is not a personal attack. Our discussions and statements are warranted as a direct result of your bahavior on Wikipedia, since you consistently exhibit Ownership Behavior and this type of behavior by deleting data and threatening editors on here. Anyone who reads your talk page, archived talk page, or RFC will easily come to the same conclusion I have...you're a loose cannon who just needs to tone it down. ZodiiakDial Z15:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
I honestly think you don't have a clue what the fuck you're talking about. First of all, saying "what the fuck does that mean?" is not directed vulgarity. I did not direct profanity AT another user. That is total bullshit. If I attack an argument, apparently it's considered a personal attack to 90% of this site. Yet I did not "blatantly personally attack" anyone. I attacked a fucking wrong point or an argument. What is so hard to understand about that? You just used "damn" in your statement. Perhaps I should consider that a personal attack. Or perhaps people should stop acting like fucking marshmallows who can't take a little criticism. An encyclopedia is not intended to detail ridiculously specific statistics of a person. It's not a fucking fan page for the person. It's an encyclopedia. And you're also blatantly wrong about Dwyane Wade being the fastest player to record 1000 points. I can't believe how wrong you are on this and yet you persist on keeping it.--TyrusThomas4lyf20:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Okay...enough of this. The edit you were trying to insert was correctly being removed by the various editors who were reverting. In keeping with the title of the article, information specific to the player whose achievement is being documented is appropriate. Generalized information about the team for which the player was playing at the time of his achievement is irrelevant. Everyone should go and have a nice quiet think now. Risker06:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I reviewed all of your blocks and contributions, and all I see is an inability to communicate with others on editing articles, and rampant personal attacks and incivility. I've blocked you indefinitely and unprotected your page; you're welcome to appeal with an unblock template -- Samir00:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)Reply
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 notice from the top of the article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TyrusThomas4lyf, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
