User talk:Tomjovanovic

September 2010
Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. Whoniverse93  (talk)  16:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Whoniverse93  (talk)  20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

EastEnders characters
Hi, please do not assume that characters like Jamie Mitchell and Debbie Bates are actually named James and Deborah, as it has never been referenced in the show. If you have a reliable source to back up your edits, please add it. Anemone Projectors  20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Wayne Olajuwon  chat   22:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit summary
When editing, could you remember to always leave a brief edit summary so other users can see what changes you have made. It would ensure your edits are not reverted without due consideration, and it would make reading through the page history a lot easier. Thanks, Ooh, Fruity    Ooh, Chatty  14:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Coronation Street characters. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ooh, Fruity   Ooh, Chatty  18:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of EastEnders characters (1996), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Lyn Scully. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

December 2010
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tina McIntyre. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''I've got to revert your edit because you've caused absolute havoc on Tina McIntyre's page, removing references and what not. Maybe you were condensing storylines or something, but you cut refs out half way, leaving massive red message, you didn't even tidy up. This isn't the first time you have recieved a warning for unhelpful editing on these articles, please take on board the notice. I think for the most part you were tring to help.''  RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 22:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Lyn Scully. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ''This goes for Rebecca Robinson as well. Please stop removing family members from the infoboxes. All family members, whether they are step or adoptive, should be included.'' - JuneGloom    Schmooze  17:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on List of past EastEnders characters. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Frickative 21:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Becky McDonald. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Not sure why felt the need to remove that.  RAIN..the..ONE  HOTLINE 17:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of minor Emmerdale characters (2008). 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 Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ''Continually, I have observed you adding unsourced storyline in what seems like minute detail. Today you added over 10,000 bytes of pure plot to Nick Henshall, all without a single reference and not needed for such a minor character.'' Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  17:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

When updating storylines for characters, could you please remember to keep them brief. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you joining a wiki project for the soaps? Are you going to reply to any of us? Are you going to keep storylines breif these days? Are you going to add content with references? Are you recieving these messages? I'm confused, happy editing! :) RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 22:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tracy Barlow, you may be blocked from editing. ''Removing content on this article and a few others, if theyre married they become step relatives, we explained this last night, you've ignored this, we have been fair but you chose to ignore a friendly on your talk page too. ''  RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 22:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of past Coronation Street characters, you may be blocked from editing. ''If someone reverts your edit once, take this as a prompter to discuss the changes before you proceed again and start an edit war. You never know, someone else may agree with you! As it is, you are quickly running out of warnings here. Next time, you will be reported.'' Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  18:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Denise Fox‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Removing characters all the time, not just on this article, You've had enough warning to last a lifetime.  RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 17:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. You have repeatedly been warned, but you take no notice, and make no attempt to discuss your edits. When the block expires please try to edit in cooperation with other editors, rather than persisting in going your own way. 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, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Re. your recent edits of List of Hollyoaks characters - it's best to format the dashes correctly. When you make an edit, below the 'save page' button you should see a small box reading 'insert'. Next to that box you'll see two dashes, the short en dash is used for closed dates (e.g. 2005–2010) whereas the long em dash is used for open dates (e.g. 2006—). The basic script is ok, but when the format exists it's best not to replace it.

Also, if an article or redirect is likely to be created in the future, a red link is ok. I see you constantly using the phrase 'this link is invalid', but truthfully no link is invalid. A link could be broken, or unnecessary, but never 'invalid'. This isn't a warning, just a note to help in the future. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  19:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason you got banned from editing, because your edits are unhelpful and you don't bother to ask why you get reverted. Next time it's warning again. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 00:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal with List of minor Emmerdale characters (2011), adding a life story of Cameron who has been in a few episodes. That's it now you are just abusing editing privilages. It's not like you will reply seeings you have never done so even after you recieved a block.. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 20:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I shouldn't have to tell you this by now. You've been told countless other times, you probably won't even read this, lord knows you don't take any notice of our advice or conflicting edits. I think you may have even lost the history button? If we had smilies on here, I'd be rolling my eyes right now. Anyway, I brought up a discussion about episode numbers a while ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Coronation Street, I even invited you to it later on and you chose not to contribute. As for the prose, in-universe material in fictional character articles should always be written in the present tense, because fiction is not dated. For instance, the character of Mike Baldwin did not cease to be, he still exists in episodes between 1976 and 2006. Links that may be created in future are ok to remain. Red links are NOT the work of the devil. If the link redirects to the wrong page or section, do a search and find where it should redirect to, don't just remove the link. I've told you so often about storylines I couldn't care less anymore. Honestly, I have clearly been too nice. You continue regardless, I'm fed up of it now. Ooh, Fruity  @  Ooh, Chatty  22:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, Exxolon (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC) (Direct link - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents)


 * Thank you for responding at ANI. I have moved your note to the appropriate subsection; you'll find it here. For clarity's sake, we do not fracture conversations at noticeboards but try to keep them compact. Please place future comments in that section. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've left this message on the ANI talk:
 * This is the first time since September 2010 you have replied to any of us. And you say we have been unfair? User Ooh Fruity even decided not to warn you after you continued after your block, then what did you do, ignore it and carry on changing dashes on pages. You may believe that, but you have to leave a note on the wiki projects talk page or at the MOS for fiction. Just because you believe something, does not mean it's then right. We work together on Wikipedia and communicate with each other as a collaborative effort to improve things. Reach a consensus which is what we did to decide the family infobox info.. How can we work on your suggestions if it's taken near enough 6 months to get a reply from you. These are fictional characters, so we leave it be on relations, the article is meant to cover there whole duration, living people have things like that updated.. It's obvious you don't want to listen to our views either. Because you carry on, even trying to edit war sometimes. You do edit too much, but you seem to misunderstand then what we mean. Storylines are in universe content, they only have a small place in fictional character articles because they are not really encyclopedic. We've explained this before, but you added so much prose to the list of Emmerdale character articles - for a character who has been in the series for a week and is not notable. RAIN*the*ONE  BAM 19:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've also given my thoughts at the talk for you Tom. Ooh, Fruity   @  Ooh, Chatty  00:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. I regret that you appear to not understand the premise of Wikipedia, in which all content can be attributed to reliable sources - which your comments here disregard. You are not a reliable source, even if you are right. Comments like this are deemed Original research. I note that these concerns were brought to ANI, where you made your only response - which was to complain that other people were hindering your efforts. It should occur to you that when several people are saying you are doing things wrong then it is likely that they are right. You are not blocked for being wrong, but for ignoring good faith attempts to help you. If you do not wish to be helped then you are unsuitable for a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. If you wish to continue to contribute, however, I suggest that you quickly familiarise yourself with WP policy and practice. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)