User talk:Smile1234smile

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page 2010 G-20 Toronto summit has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. tutterMouse (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to 2010 G-20 Toronto summit. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. --M4gnum0n (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edits to 2009 G-20 London summit and 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit were elegant.

In this context, please consider commenting at Talk:2010 G-20 Toronto summit/Archives/1#ASEAN in the infobox.

Although consensus may cause changes in the future, it seemed reasonable to harmonize the corollary tables at 2010 G-20 Toronto summit and 2010 G-20 Seoul summit because of the format change you introduced. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Resignation of Shirley Sherrod has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Person notable for a single event only.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Shirley Sherrod. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy material from other websites. [1] contains this sentence fragment - "the heels of another surrounding the Department of Justice’s decision to scale back its voter-intimidation lawsuit against a group known as the New Black Panther Party", which is word-for-word copied from [2]. Copying and pasting material from other websites is not acceptable, unless it is clearly in quotation marks. This phrasing is horrible anyway for a neutral article. They aren't "known as" the NBPP, they "are" the NBPP. (The fact that the old BPP disagrees with them doesn't change their name.) The DOJ didn't "scale back" a lawsuit - they "dropped" or "settled" the lawsuit. If there are any other instances where you have copied and pasted material from other sites, please fix them. --B (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please start using edit summaries. Help:Edit summary explains what they are and how to use them. The short version is that when you make an edit, there is a little box below that edit. In that box, please add a brief description of what you did. Specifically, using the default edit summary for a revert like [3] is considered extremely rude - it is only appropriate to revert without an edit summary in the case of simple vandalism, or other allowed purposes as described at Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback. --B (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors have noted the need for the Shirley Sherrod article to be copy-edited. Please stop removing the tag and reverting other improvements. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit tag is needed on Resignation of Shirley Sherrod because much of the article as edited was poorly phrased and otherwise not in keeping with the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Please stop removing it - it has nothing to do with anyone's views, it has to do only with consistency in the encyclopedia's style and appearance. The tag alerts editors who may not have been reading this article to come over and help out with the writing, so please don't remove it now without discussion which should be on the article's talk page. Thank you. Tvoz/talk 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 07:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Smile1234smile (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not know what happened. Can anyone specify. Please check my IP. This might be a case of mistaken identity.

Decline reason:

It looks like, from this investigation, that you are a sockpuppet of a banned user. You'll have to address those concerns before you can be unblocked. TNXMan 14:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

Smile1234smile (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Can I please edit now. I am still not sure what is happening.

Decline reason:

Yes you are. You are a sockpuppet and you are not going to be unblocked.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

Smile1234smile (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I looked at the link and it seems to say: ::" Inconclusive Behavioral evidence will need to be the primary determinant. -- Avi (talk) 12:02 am, Today (UTC−5)" :I don't know what that means exactly?

Decline reason:

It means that the checkuser couldn't conclusively indicate you were or were not a sock puppet, so an analysis of your editing behavior would need to be the deciding factor of whether you were or not. I mean no offense, but your question, while fair, isn't really an unblock request. Use the {{help}} template if you have questions. - Vianello (Talk) 04:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

On July 26, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Political killings in the Philippines (2001-2010), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On July 28, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Etta Rosales, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On 29 July, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Suludnon, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Smile1234smile (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to request to be unblocked (or at least have the block expire in a specific time-limit) since there is no basis for the block as a far as the comment below is concerned. I would also like to say that the only intention I have here is to improve the encyclopedia like what I have done in the examples above. ::" Inconclusive Behavioral evidence will need to be the primary determinant. -- Avi (talk) 12:02 am, Today (UTC−5)"

Decline reason:

The fact of the matter is that most sockpuppet blocks are primarily based on behavioral evidence. There is no middle ground on the time frame. If you are a block-evading sock you will remain blocked indefinitely, if you can convince us you are not you can be unblocked right away. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

Smile1234smile (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm an editor in California using a relatively stable IP address. It appears that the person you are accusing me of (I checked) lives half a world away and uses several IP addresses. Unless you could prove that that person could physically teleport themselves, then your accusations are baseless. I am really saddened by this incident and I hope that a reconciliatory resolution would come out of this. :: :The IP that I have been using appears to have been blocked also. Is it wrong to edit? I am sorry if I had done a mistake.

Decline reason:

There are many ways to use IP addresses from around the world, and we have no way to know if this account is being operated from the IP address you say it is. Checkusers do, but do not publish that information. Anyways, the behavioral evidence is clear enough in this case, there's absolutely no need to even look at any technical evidence. Jayron32 03:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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).

Smile1234smile (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The Checkuser has confirmed that there is not enough evidence to confirm anything. See below. I do guarantee that I am in fact in California and has been using the same IP address since day one. The similarity of my edits and the user I am accused of being may be due to background, Filipino ancestry. It could easily be coincidental. ::" Inconclusive Behavioral evidence will need to be the primary determinant. -- Avi (talk) 12:02 am, Today (UTC−5)"

Decline reason:

You've made too many unblock requests without advancing any new arguments. I am disabling your talk page access.  Sandstein  14:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The file File:P-Noy.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]