User talk:Drew R. Smith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Various warnings[edit]

This edit wasn't your finest: [1]

  1. Don't make controversial edits to others' user pages.
  2. Don't repeat a disputed edit. That's how edit wars start.
  3. Don't use profanity in edit summaries. If you do, people will assume you are a vandal and rollback your edit.

I hope you take this advice to heart. Jehochman Talk 13:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If it quacks like a duck... If it smells like Bullshit...Drew Smith What I've done 13:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Drew, you've already admitted elsewhere that you have intentionally been making disruptive edits to make a point. I would caution you that any such edits may result in a block. –xenotalk 13:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Totally unrelated Xeno. Drew Smith What I've done 13:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Besides, this isn't disruptive. Am I getting in the way of you writing articles?Drew Smith What I've done 13:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
They may be unrelated, but are similar behaviour patterns. I would suggest you reflect on the reasons you became a contributor here and work towards continuing your constructive contributions. –xenotalk 13:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I became an editor here because there was a flaw. I fixed it. Now I have found another flaw. I'm going to fix it.Drew Smith What I've done 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please take the next 24 hours to reflect on your future as an editor here and whether you want it to be a positive or a negative one. –xenotalk 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drew R. Smith (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have done nothing disruptive. Please look through my contributions and you will find that I have made plenty of good contributions. I have been blocked because I placed a fact tag on a disputed fact. Per WP:SOAP, even Jimbo is not allowed to spread propaganda on his userpage. For those who don't know, a lie is considered propaganda.

Decline reason:

Users are allowed to describe themselves as they like on their own user pages, which are not articles and therefore do not require {{fact}} tags. You should have asked Jimbo on his Talk page to change it. You continued after warnings, which is disruptive. Insulting the blocking admin isn't going to get you unblocked either. I see no repentance sufficient to justify unblocking. Rodhullandemu 13:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

  • Note to reviewing administrator: user was edit warring over a beaten-to-death point of contention, I also note that "founder" and "co-founder" are not mutually exclusive. If you feel that this block should be lifted, please feel free without further consult with me. –xenotalk 13:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
No edit war here. I only reverted twice.Drew Smith What I've done 13:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:3RR#Not an entitlement. –xenotalk 13:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
So? Still not an edit war. I have no history of edit warring. I have no history of anything but good contributions. This block is definitely not your best Xeno. And if I recall correctly, you do have a history of bad blocks edits...Drew Smith What I've done 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Your memory seems to fail you, along with your judgment. –xenotalk 13:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
[2] My memory fails me Xeno?Drew Smith What I've done 13:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for amending your comment to say "edits" instead of "blocks". I shall not respond to you on any further well-poisoning efforts, but I would remind you that one incident does not a history make. –xenotalk 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Very well. And I apologize for being a dick. I'm usually an all around nice guy, but being blocked for what seems like nothing really ruffles my feathers. Also, I'm not sure if the "thanks for changing your edit" above was sincere or sarcastic, but my memory failed me. I was under the impression that you made the block. Once I found the page, I realized I had made a mistake. I fixed it.Drew Smith What I've done 14:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
It was sincere, and apology accepted.
I'm not sure why you felt the need to edit war over minutia on Jimmy's page. It's a dead and buried horse. If you commit not to make further such edits, I will unblock. –xenotalk 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Minutia? Not really. I have more sources than I have hair to back up the opposite of what jimbo is claiming. I do not see my actions as disruptive, but yes, I will agree not to edit jimbos userpage. The talk page however, is not off limits.Drew Smith What I've done 14:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. While you may not see it as such, I would advise against other similar edits elsewhere. –xenotalk 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I recieved one warning, singular. I have not edit warred. Please read WP:UP#NOT and WP:SOAP, and tell me that people can describe themselves however they want. And I did not insult Xeno, or at least didnt intend to. I merely pointed out a history.}}

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per your commitment not to repeat the behaviour that prompted the block. –xenotalk 14:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Your trolling on Jimbo's talk page[edit]

Please stop it. He doesn't care to answer your accusations, so stop pestering him. →javért stargaze 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

A leader should be available for comment on his past misdeeds. At least thats what we tell our admins. And I do not appreciate being called a troll. I have a long history of article creation and vandal fighting. Any more troll accusations and I will make a case against you at WP:WQA.Drew Smith What I've done 03:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You will be blocked for disruptive editing if you continue. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What disruptive editing? I am asking a question! I did not re-introduce text that Jimbo removed from his talk page. I did re-add text that Javert removed from his talkpage, however Javert has no right to remove my question from someone elses talk page. If you block me, there will be an arbcom case.Drew Smith What I've done 03:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


As you were warned numerous times above, blocked for (but unblocked on the premise that you would stop), you decided to continue and thus I have blocked you for 1 week. You may appeal the block by adding {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

1) The block above was for "edit warring" (I still contest that it was) about a fact tag on Jimbo's userpage.
2) I have resorted to using the talkpage, as instructed.
3) I have not continued any action, thus your block is still lacking in a reason.
4) Rjd0060 and Javert have bothed engaged in removal of content, which is not allowed. The only exception to this rule is a user on his own userpage or user talk page.
1) No, I blocked you for disruptive editing. Not "edit warring".
2) Yes, and you're well aware (as he removed your other comments regarding the same issue) that he is uninterested and knowing full well that your comments would be continued to be removed.
3) You continued after your warnings earlier today, after your block, after I warned you. Refer to #1 for reiteration in response to your third point with regards to a block reason.
I think a one-week block length is generous based on your complete disregard to comments and blocking thus far. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No, my first bock was "edit warring" on Jimbos user page. You claim I continued that action which I haven't. You also seem to think that I reintroduced text that Jimbo removed. I have not. I have asked a new question. When the new question was removed by someone other than Jimbo, I re-added it, as removal of content (other than from ones own userpage or user talk page) is against our policies.Drew Smith What I've done 03:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drew R. Smith (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

based on the above

Decline reason:

You need to leave Jimbo alone. He has the same right to remove your comments from his talk page as anyone else. (Rjd and Javert merely removed what Jimbo has already indicated he does not want on his talk page) When the block expires, leave jimbo alone, and don't cause disruption by repeating what he has already declined to involve himself in. Prodego talk 04:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

User indicates they will stay away from User:Jimbo Wales: meaning that he will not attempt to contact Jimbo on Wikipedia.

Request handled by: Prodego talk 04:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

You continued the same discussion that he removed. The only way I am unblocking you is if you agree not to edit jimbo's talk page, or attempt to communicate with him elsewhere (on Wikipedia). Prodego talk 04:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You've gotta be kidding me! A leader who refuses to answer questions? Someone needs to fire that guy. But yes, I'll stay away from him.Drew Smith What I've done 04:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Unblocked then. Prodego talk 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* What part of 'leave jimbo alone' was not clear to you? An arbcom case about jimbo removing your comment, which a) involves jimbo, which was the thing you were supposed to not do after your second unblock b) repeats the behaviour that prompted the (first block) which was the provision of your first unblock, and c) as I have already explained, Jimbo, and every other editor, is free to remove whatever they want from their talk pages. So, I'll give you two choices here. 1) You remove the arbcom case which isn't going to go anywhere anyway - and I'd be happy to discuss this with you more via email (I'm Prodego@gmail.com) or 2) I remove it. Your choice. Prodego talk 04:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  1. I said I would stop trying to contact Jimbo.
  2. The Arbcom case is about Javert and Rjd0060's behaviour.
  3. You can't remove the Arbcom case.Drew Smith What I've done 04:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I can remove the arbcom case, but if you would rather they reject it, that works for me. Arbcom isn't going to accept it because they do not accept cases unless other methods of dispute resolution have been tried. Prodego talk 04:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No you cant. Only members of the ArbCom can remove cases.Drew Smith What I've done 04:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, if you would like it looked at formally, go ahead. But it really is not in your best interests, because the case will be rejected. Prodego talk 04:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm still going to try.Drew Smith What I've done 04:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Drew, waz-up? Prodego's letting you off pretty lightly ;) Please note that it's a wiki; I'm a bit inclined to go remove yon silly request. And I could; we can edit most anything as long as we're doing the right thing. I expect it gone pretty damn quick and you'll be lucky if you only get the week-long disruptive editing block reinstated. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC) (sock first class, and all that;)

Hi Jack, I know we haven't had the best runins in the past, but I have tried to be ammicable towards you. However, only Arbcom members are allowed to remove requests for arbitration. Also, what was your reference to Furthur about?Drew Smith What I've done 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
You miss my point; the right thing to do is to remove it. Someone will, and they have clerks for shit like this. What you are doing is patently obvious disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point, which in your case is that you're miffed about the Vandalism Patrol. You started off a few months ago doing the talk-like-an-admin thing and when folks started to question stuff, as I did, you turned to a lot of inappropriate behaviors. It's all rather disruptive and you're about to get all sorted out. Oh, links to things like furthur are just to keep the silly pages worth reading; folks will be looking at all of this and the least I can do is provide a few smiles. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with the Vandalism Patrol! Come off it! And I don't know what you're talking about with the "talk-like-an-admin" thing.Drew Smith What I've done 06:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear...[edit]

I don't know where to begin... Perhaps I should start from the begining... July 5, 2009. My fiance left me (as my userpage has said for some time now) and I decided to take a wikibreak. I left, sorted out my life, got a job (at lowes for anyone who's interested), and read a few good books. I have not looked at wikipedia since that day. Now, the first time I log on in more than a month, and I find my talk page full of crap that I had nothing to do with.

Obviously some (or most) of you will see this as a cop out, but it is not. However, my account has been compromised. I am changing the password, and will attempt to figure out that cryptographic hash thing so this doesn't happen again.

I really don't know what to say. Either you will believe me or you won't. I am deeply disturbed by the events that have taken place under my name.Drew Smith What I've done 10:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You know that you have a current RfArb against me, Jimbo and, Rjd0060 right? →javért stargaze 10:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
methinks that was some other "Drew" ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Yes, I just saw that in "my" contribs". And apparently only arbcom members can close them... Best course of action?Drew Smith What I've done 10:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
methinks you had better get over there and make your own comment ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I already did. ;) Drew Smith What I've done 10:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
methinks that if that doesn't work, you could try the "dog ate" it one ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm? Either your reference is lost on me, or more likely, you don't believe me. I assure you, I have been working my ass off this past month trying to learn the ropes at my new job. I haven't had time for nonsense like this. You'll see. Nothing but constructive edits will flow from these fingertips. Drew Smith What I've done 11:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

fyi, Ryan has removed the request ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed.Drew Smith What I've done 11:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that a CheckUser investigation be conducted to determine whether the hijacker can be identified and/or is using other accounts. —David Levy 11:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess. I don't know that much about it...Drew Smith What I've done 11:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
It would be appropriate for you to say that you agree to the CU. However, given the circumstances, you've described, it would be warranted anyway ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I agree to the checkuser.Drew Smith What I've done 11:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Great. It doesn't take too long and doesn't hurt. much. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Meh. I'm tough. I can handle it. ;) Drew Smith What I've done 11:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
relax. breathe normally. ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
didn't feel a thing, did you? ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

<--hm... I just found this WP:GOTHACKED... Maybe a new account with links to the old one might be prudent? Or should I just wait for the checkuser results?Drew Smith What I've done 12:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news, Drew! You probably don't need a new account, since in the considered judgement of 2 different CU's, your account wasn't actually hacked. Apparently it was you acting silly all along. That's a relief, I'm sure. Except that if you don't knock it off going forward (you've been warned multiple times now), you may well find yourself blocked soon enough. Without a "my dog ate my homework"/"my little brother did it" defense available to you either. So keep that in mind. Spare us the excuses and stories about how your life is hard, and just don't act up. Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it a place to blow off steam. We're writing an encyclopedia here. We're not kidding. You've been given lots of friendly advice, it's time for some more stern talk. Best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Too late, I just indefinitely blocked the account. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That's part of Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. You're not blocked at the moment ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Good point.Drew Smith What I've done 12:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologise if my use of humour offended you. However, do put yourself in my shoes. Best, →javért stargaze 12:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I said many times that I understand why you don't believe me. I wasn't offended, but the jokes are getting old.Drew Smith What I've done 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Results of a CU by me are on my talk page. Versageek may have a comment as well, she ran one too. Reproduced for convenience:

This user edits from one IP. Although there is evidence that this user edits logged out, and edits from another userID (sock), already blocked, I find no evidence that any other IP was used to log in as this user. That means it is extremely unlikely that the account was hacked by someone not in the same physical location as this user, and further, extremely unlikely that the user's claim that someone else was making the recent edits he is denying responsibility for is true, unless he switches to "my little brother did it" style explanation.

Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 12:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know what to tell you. I haven't done any of this. I'm sure no one will believe me now, and can't say that I blame them, but I maintain that I didn't make the edits. I have undone, to the best of my ability, the malicious edits, and my future behavior will prove that I had nothing to do with this.Drew Smith What I've done 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

What is going on? Everytime I open the edit window I get logged out!Drew Smith What I've done 12:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Indef block[edit]

Enough games have been played with this account. I have blocked it indefinitely. Please do not remove this block without consulting me first. The block reasons are disruptive editing, WP:POINT, and block evasion. See Lar's comments for additional evidence.[3] Jehochman Talk 12:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drew R. Smith (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

What disruptive editing!? I haven't been able to get a word in edgewise! I get logged out everytime I try to make an edit!Drew Smith What I've done 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea whats going on anymore. Everytime I try to make an edit, I get logged out. That particular problem seems to be fixed, but now I'm blocked for disruptive editing. What disruptive editing?

Decline reason:

Two CheckUser investigations were conducted, and both showed that your account has not been compromised. Furthermore, you just revealed your IP address, which was used to commit numerous acts of vandalism. This includes several edits to User:Jimbo Wales in June (long before your wikibreak), which happen to directly relate to the allegations against Jimbo made via your account. —David Levy 12:47/13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drew R. Smith (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I've been here long enough to know that "someone else did it" isn't going to work, even if that is the case. I have already stated that edits like that will not occur again, and take responsibility for the edits, as I did not maintain adequate security of my account. I would like to return to constructive editing, even if that means going through mentoring, or waiting for a block to expire. Indef seems a bit long to wait though.

Decline reason:

Nope, this is not the first time you have made similar edits. Evidence forthcoming. ViridaeTalk 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

For the record, I didn't mean to edit war. I dont mind the otherstuff being there, I just wanted mine there as well.Drew Smith What I've done 13:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jehochman beat me to restoring your latest unblock request. →javért stargaze 13:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've reduced this block to a week as a gesture of good faith. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Jehochman. Again, I apologize for the malicious edits, but maintain that I did not make them. Once I return from my voluntold wikibreak you'll see from my contributions that I only intend to improve the encyclopedia. Meanwhile, I'll be doing an investigation of my own, within my home...Drew Smith What I've done 13:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so now you are moving on to the "my little brother did it" defense? —David Levy 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Why? Drew has not even acknowledged that he performed the disruptive edits and fabricated the claim that his account was hijacked. —David Levy 13:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)David, you seem to be kicking a man when he's down. I understand why you removed my rollbacker priveliges, but as I am blocked, I can't really use them can I? When I come back, I intended to do anti vandal work, as I had done before my wikibreak. Loss of those priveliges will make it much more tiresome. Besides, I have never misused the rollbacker priveliges. Had a misunderstanding awhile back, but never intentional misuse.Drew Smith What I've done 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) David, that really isn't helping. Please accept good faith as Jehochman has done. I really do intend to improve the encyclopedia, as I have always done.Drew Smith What I've done 13:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Also David, I am checking to see if the "my roomate did it" defence is even viable. I am editing from a shared computer. I never said that is what happened, but that I am going to investigate.Drew Smith What I've done 13:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
We need a CU on Drew's dog, methinks ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Drew, you're going to have a much easier time just coming clean than trying out various excuses. (Noting the obvious similarities between word choice, style, lack of space between end-of-comment and signature, etc.) between you and this individual who has been editing from your account. –xenotalk 13:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Seriously, Drew, you're just adding insult to injury at this point. —David Levy 13:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
For the record; I've had a fair amount of dialogue with Drew — over several months and with, ah, both "Drews". There is only one voice here. I'm not buying any of it. There is also the blocked sock Larry mentions, the anon edits, and whatever the other 'shoe' is that Viridae's referring to at User talk:Lar#Email. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) On one hand I'm glad to see that you realized that ArbCom wasn't the way to go. On the other hand, it is quite disappointing to see that you are still claiming innocence. If you're not familiar with CheckUser perhaps you'd be interested in knowing that users with CheckUser access can determine whether or not multiple edits were made from not only the same IP address, but the same computer. I'll just echo what everybody else is already telling you; enough with the excuses. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


(ec)I don't know what you want me to say. I'm not going to own up to something I did not do. And xeno, I'm not trying out different excuses. I maintain that I did not make the edits. If I find out that someone within my home has made the edits, I will make no mention of it here, and let the matter die peacefully. I will still investigate for my own benefit. Also, I alternate between putting a space between my comment and sig, and leaving it out. If it bothers you so much, I'll add a space to the sig subpage once my block expires. Jack, please leave the jokes elsewhere. I have asked you repeatedly to stop, and you are bordering on incivility. I understand that you don't believe me. But m:don't be a dick about it.Drew Smith What I've done 13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew: I would like to state, as a mostly uninvolved observer, that it is VERY hard for us to believe the story about your account being compromised based on the technical evidence the CheckUsers have presented, and from the previous behavior on your account and your IP AND your sock. Though we can't peer through your computer and actually see who is sitting at it, for all intents and purposes, it seems like all the edits in question are coming from the same person. Regardless, it looks like the community is going to give you another chance. All I can say is: Don't screw it up. Keep your account secure. Keep your edits in line. I can promise you that any further misbehavior not only will result in a indefinite block, but a thread at WP:AN requesting consensus for a community ban. You have another chance. Don't betray our trust, because this is it. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've stated before that I don't intend to screw it up. I also completely understand why no one believes me. I'm not really asking anyone to, just asking for a chance to prove myself (which I will get in about a week it appears). I really am sorry for the edits that have happened in my absence. Can we let it go now?Drew Smith What I've done 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The "in my absence" part is downright insulting. Frankly, I don't understand why the community would give you another chance while you continue to make such claims.
If you truly wish to regain people's trust, please come clean. The longer you delay this, the more your credibility will suffer. —David Levy 14:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note Viridae's "Evidence forthcoming", above. Folks need to get on the same page, which takes time. See the bottoms of Larry's and Jonathan's pages, too.
Drew, no one's buying the excuses. It's getting late for me, and it's ridiculously late for you. For others, it's day and they're busy with other things. All will sort soon enough. I've stricken the dog bit for you. G'night, Jack Merridew 14:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best if everyone just stopped editing this page for 6.5 days? I don't see anything constructive emerging, on either side, and everything that can be said to Drew seems to have been said. I've no horse in this race, so giving me the last word wouldn't be conceding anyone a point. Y'all can signify acceptance of this idea by... not posting to this page for 6.5 days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll find no such acceptance from me. Drew is actively attempting to deceive the community, and this should not be ignored.
Despite my obvious distaste for Drew's conduct, I'm actually trying to help him (and I believe that others are as well). If he truly wishes to "prove [him]self" an asset to the encyclopedia, it's in his best interests to drop the charade and issue a sincere apology. Otherwise, this cloud will hang over him for the foreseeable future (whether we mention it or not). —David Levy 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
That may be, but as a courtesy to the user, who is currently restricted to this page only, would you please refrain from making the same arguments that have already been stated, and wait for further evidence. My own feeling is that the editor has shown capacity for constructive involvment, and also capacity for socking and disruption. It is better to encourage them to go in a good direction (with a fixed term block) than to encourage more socking and disruption (with an indefinite block). If my leniency is met with more socking and disruption, then there is no downside to an indefinite block, and that's what will follow. Hopefully we won't go in that direction. Jehochman Talk 20:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not here to argue Drew's guilt. (The facts speak for themselves.) I'm urging Drew to do what's best for everyone involved (including himself).
I'm entirely willing to give Drew another chance, and that's precisely what I'm doing. But unless and until he decides to be honest with the community, it's my opinion that he's blowing that chance, and I see no reason to trust him. (I assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.)
Having said that, I share your hope that Drew can "go in a good direction." He just isn't off to a strong start. —David Levy 22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence[edit]

I mentioned evidence, and wrote this up last night.

In late June I blocked an account called Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs), shortly afterwards Drew R. Smith (talk · contribs) requested that an autoblock that was affecting him, caused by my block of LSR, be lifted. He claimed to not have any knowledge of LSR. I lifted the autoblock, but contacted a CU and asked them to check for any similarities. Turns out that LSR and Drew shared a common (static) IP. Drew is(was?) on two geographically co-located ISPs, both with static IPs, LSR was on one of those. Both Drew, LSR and the underlying common IP shared the same browser/OS configurations. The IP and LSR shared all of Drews, but Drew had more besides. The IP had been blocked in the past for the same reasons LSR had been blocked. Indications are that Drew, LSR and the IP are one and the same. At the time, I decided that being caught would probobly have been enough to deter drew from repeating that behaviour so let it lie. Circumstantially, but I think it bears mentioning, until recently Drew had a quote on his talk page, (old version, at the top: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Drew_R._Smith&oldid=297678634 ) which is attributed to someone on Citizendium. On the basis of repeated disruption and and abusive sockpuppetry I believe Drew should remain blocked indefinitely. ViridaeTalk 21:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not in the least swayed by the users' intent to 'investigate in his household' to explain away all of this, but find Jehochman's comments above at 20:27 convincing. I would say let the week block in place run its course and hope the user chooses the path of constructiveness. –xenotalk 21:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
No that's fair enough, as I said, I wrote that up last night, sent it to Lar to check the details and then went to bed. I should add though, that since that last CU, the 1 drew only was onhas dropped off, and now there is a single shared static IP for LSR and Drew (and the IP has been similarly blocked as mentioned above) ViridaeTalk 21:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, Viridae. I can hope (and I'll assume) that now, since there are at least 6 administrators and 3 checkusers watching Drew, that we won't have any more issues once the block expires. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the IP crap was me. Never heard of LSR. Yes, I am a contributor at citizendium. My user page is here. I assume that will not be a factor in whether I stay or leave wikipedia. As I have stated before, I intend to be constructive.Drew Smith What I've done 02:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Nope, sorry, don't believe you and I doubt anyone else does either. Same MO/hobby horse as the IP and the edits which caused the most recent brouhaha. ViridaeTalk 07:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Drew: Your denial (denying that you are LSR) is not credible, unless you're using the "my little brother did it" defense. The technical correlation is just too strong. That account probably should be tagged as a confirmed sock of yours. ... that Viridae didn't do it back then was just because he was cutting you a break in hopes you'd straighten up and fly right. Stop with the denials, and do just that. Straighten up and fly right. Don't just tell us you will, do it. ++Lar: t/c 10:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me?[edit]

Thanks for offering me adoption now what happens next? Metrolink-Boy (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh. Nothing. I'm currently blocked for a week. I would suggest you find a new adopter, as having me adopt you may be more of a stain on your record than anything else. If you still want me to adopt you when I am unblocked, I am willing. Again, I think it would be in your best interests to find someone else...Drew Smith What I've done 02:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


Heard there were some vandals about[edit]

HAI was corrected by a bot in under 1 minute. Didn't check the rest but they presumably are similar. Reporting vandalism this way probably isn't the best use of your time. Why not try writing the start of an article here in your userpage, instead? There are lots of topics you could choose from. Bots can't write articles. ++Lar: t/c 10:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lar here - reporting vandalism like this is not helpful. If you want to use the time wisely, look for really old vandalism, like this. Category:Articles with unsourced statements from December 2006 is a good place to start, and I recommend working on the BLPs first. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hm... I've never even heard of that... I'll take a look, thanks!Drew Smith What I've done 11:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested Changes[edit]

Just to start with. I'll find more soon. Removed unsourced information, reworded a few phrases, added citations to possibly contentious material. Added an image. When moved to article space delete the colon from Category:Computer occupations.

erm[edit]

Why the reversion? Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Parrot of Doom (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Native rollback is restored, please be more careful... [4]xenotalk 13:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you xeno. Huggle is so much easier to use than that outdated anti vandal tool. Also, note the apology on the IP's talk page. - Drew Smith What I've done 13:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, noticed. Cheers, –xenotalk 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding a fact[edit]

is not vandalism. --81.159.152.147 (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

1) That scientology is a cult is not a fact, it is an opinion (that I share, but that is beside the point)
2) Introducing opinions in such a way is in fact vandalism and POV pushing. - Drew Smith What I've done 13:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Tan | 39 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Am Not! lol. Vandalism reversion dance. I stopped when he included only info and no crap. - Drew Smith What I've done 15:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:VANDAL. Those edits were not vandalism. Tan | 39 15:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
He appeared to be attacking the person to me. Maybe I'm wrong. But again, I've left it alone. - Drew Smith What I've done 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Really, Drew. Two hours off a week long block and this? Not good. Jack Merridew 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, it's not that big of a deal. Drew, which IP edit did you consider to be "attacking"? Tan | 39 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Hang on, I would say it is vandalism. It's like the IP is saying he was successful at Chelsea, but now not at Fulham (because either they or he are rubbish). That's how it looks to me. – B.hoteptalk• 15:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Mostly the first one. The rest were all variants of the first. Oh, and beat it Jack. Your jokes and opinions aren't welcome on my page. - Drew Smith What I've done 15:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
(after ec) Basically what B.hotep said. - Drew Smith What I've done 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, okay. I'm not sure I see the vandalism, but it could be a grey area here. Keep an eye on the article and IP, let me know if anything escalates. Tan | 39 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Will do :) - Drew Smith What I've done 15:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
FYI, the IP was blocked eventually for carrying on their vandalism/edit warring – call it what you will. – B.hoteptalk• 18:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Slow and steady wins the race[edit]

Could you Huggle a little slower, please? I've reverted your edits to Lisa Wong, Kate Greenaway, Teri Garr, and Charleston, South Carolina, and someone else reverted your edits to Steven Spielberg. This is all in your last 13 article space edits. I think if you go slower, your Huggling will actually be a lot more useful. Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stop listing new reverts now, because I'm not trying to twist the knife, but this is a really bad error rate. I guess I'll go through your last few dozen edits and revert what I need to, but this kind of thing can't go on. Please take it easy. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to pile on, Drew, but please take heed of the above. It's not a race and further errors may result in your rollback rights being removed. –xenotalk 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, this actually seems to be the extent of it; I checked the 2 dozen reverts before Charleston, and they all look fine. Fatigue, perhaps? Anyway, cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Fatigue mostly. Lisa Wang is a real article, and I didnt know wong was the mayor of the town. I thought Kate Greenway was removal of content; I didnt notice it was simply moved. I don't know what happened with Terri Garr. I don't even remember the name. Erik9 reverted before me on Charleston, and somehow huggle still let me revert. Spielberg... I have no idea. Maybe I should stop huggling late at night. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Not much "maybe" about it. Please be more careful in the future to ensure you do not revert good edits. If you are in doubt, don't revert. Tan | 39 05:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Disambig with one entry?[edit]

User:Chicon59 is having enough difficulty with their non-notable, unwikified articles without you giving bad advice. GLISC and SIGLE should be redirects, not disambigs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I was only trying to help, and was getting quite tired when I found those pages. I guess I had assumed since he was using that format that there were other articles that were going to go there. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Insectivorous plants‎[edit]

Please upload an image of the full page of Insectivorous plants by Charles Darwin, containing the text shown in File:Insectivorous_Plants_Drew's_copy.jpg, either as a scan showing the full outline of the book, or as a high resolution photograph showing the full book, open to that page. Prodego talk 00:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It'll be awhile. I answered fully at Steves talk page - Drew Smith What I've done 02:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
So it's going to take you a while to convincingly photoshop an image of the book with the error in it? You aren't kidding! Please be aware that I'm a computer graphics and image analysis expert - if you intend to fake a photo, I WILL be testing it with tools more powerful than you can imagine - and I WILL be able to prove whether it's real or not. SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Copies are available on Internet Archive.
John Vandenberg (chat) 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


IMHO, the evidence presented on my talk page is quite convincing - and utterly damning. Forget all the fancy questions about jpeg compression (which are actually pretty damning too) - by far the most convincing evidence was in the first post about this. Vis:
  1. The text is lined up PERFECTLY with the raster lines and shows no foreshortening artifacts from either the curvature of page near the spine nor of the inevitable artifacting you get when you try to correct for that. The odds of this being the case for someone doing a quick scan of an old book with a camera or a normal home/office scanner are near zero. Even the scans of the books made by Google are not that perfect with the text rising and falling by several pixels over the length of a line of text - and they have specialised equipment to photograph the pages when they are dead flat and carefully aligned.
  2. If you type this text, verbatim into Microsoft Word with the font set to Times New Roman/14pt - with everything else defaulting to normal - you get exactly the word breaks and spacing that you see here. That's so astronomically unlikely to be a coincidence that we can effectively discount any other explanation than that Drew typed the text into Word, grabbed a screen shot and doctored it to make it look old.
  3. The color of the background is statistically, incredibly even (although there are jpeg artifacts that make it appear less so). The natural fade of a real book - combined with the need to correct for page curl near the spine would never produce such uniformity.
  4. Books of the time were printed with around 60 characters to a line - this one has about 80 characters to the line...you might argue that this is a much more recently printed copy - but then why would it have all of that yellowing of the page?
  5. Many ref-desk folks went to the trouble to try to find other copies of Darwin's work that shows the same error - I personally checked a dozen web sites showing the text from many reprints - from a first edition onwards - with the hope of being able to tell Drew which rare and interesting revision of the book he might have...I couldn't find one with this error in it. Yesterday, I checked a modern paperback edition. I even found Darwin's original hand-written notes that he wrote the book from and there is no indication that he ever said that this plant came from anywhere other than South Carolina. Some of us even checked foreign language editions just to be sure.
The evidence is utterly overwhelming. Added to Drew's less-than-stellar history here at Wikipedia - the conclusion is also overwhelming. Distasteful though it is to say so - I have to conclude that what we have here is an editor who is falsifying claimed references - that's just about the most serious offense I can imagine within a community who are writing an encyclopedia. Even vandals can be easily tracked down and their errors uncovered by reference to source material...but here we're faced with an editor who would go to such lengths to avoid saying the word "Ooops!" that he'd forge a "photograph" of Charles Darwin's own book! That's incredible.
SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at each of the djvu files on archive.org, and they all end the first line at "from the" - i.e. "rapidity and force" is on the second line - so I am also find it incredible that there is an "old" edition which matches the image where "rapidity and force" is on the first line. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm tired of all this[edit]

So I'm coming clean. I faked the photo because I didn't want to lose face. Unexcusable, I know. I have never falsified anything in articles, and I have never done anything like this before or since. To be honest, I had long forgot about it, and was already trying to turn over a new leaf (hence the name change request).

For anyone interested, I didn't go to such extraordinary lengths as you're describing. I took a real screenshot of the section from google books, yellowed the page, made the T in THIS bigger, and changed the sentence.

Before anyone gets trigger happy, this happened quite some time ago, has never happened before, and has never happened since. I was already trying to start over when this came up. Any block now would be punitive, not preventative. - Drew Smith What I've done 09:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for coming clean - that took guts.
I wasted a lot of time (several hours) trying to find out why you had such an "interesting" copy of this book - so did a bunch of other people. I consider my time valuable. You wasted it just to avoid using that one little word "Ooops!". Nobody loses face here for having an error of memory - I'm wrong several times a week and I try to accept that with good grace. However, pulling a stunt like this one made you lose face, respect, honor, trust...you name it, you lost it. If you work hard at being a good Wikipedian - you'll eventually get back to a position where people trust you.
I hope this incident has impressed upon you the extreme importance placed upon truth and (especially) truth in quoting references here at Wikipedia. I am prepared to back down and pursue this no further - but if I EVER catch you falsifying so much as a comma in future, my wrath will be beyond imagining and a permanent ban from editing Wikipedia would be the most likely result.
Obviously I cannot speak for others - others may still feel the need to express .
SteveBaker (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I don't think Drew is still being honest about how the image was created, when he says, "I took a real screenshot of the section from google books, yellowed the page, made the T in THIS bigger, and changed the sentence." The problem is that the linebreaks, fontsize and punctuation don't match; footnote markers are missing etc compared to the versions of the book I have seen on Google Books. Normally I would assume good faith, but in this instance Occam's razor is more useful. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I copied and pasted from google, I don't remember. It was over a month ago. My point was, I didn't go to nearly as much trouble as everyone seemed to think. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry if this sounds harsh, but I cannot trust anything you say in this regards given that your explanation shifts each time new evidence is brought forth to expose a previous lie. For example, you yourself admitted, "One more note; I touched up the original darwin image because the photo was unclear. I darkened the lettering, and generally brought the image into focus.". Now you say that you didn't go through all that trouble. The image analysis presented by User:Durova shows otherwise, and frankly has greater credibility with me. The source fabrication followed by continued prevarication over a period of 2 months is troubling to me. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have struck out the part that I now think you were being truthful about (see alternate explanation). Abecedare (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drew R. Smith. You have new messages at WP:CHU.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

t'shael the sockTalk to my master 02:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for falsifying references. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 14:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Um, I'd like to protest this block. It appears that it follows his admission that he faked the reference. Coming clean is what we want editors to do; if he remains blocked the net result would be to encourage people to dig in their heels and continue a charade, once it had started. It would seem more appropriate to give him a stern warning, and if he repeats the behavior then certainly a long block should follow. But for now I regard this matter as resolved. Durova306 16:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I considered this. I also considered taking it to AN/I to discuss. However, given past behavior problems, I couldn't justify anything but a block. This wasn't vandalism or something easily reversed, it took an image expert to prove the offense. This is a very concerning problem, and given the difficulty in locating it, it could possibly happen again without our knowledge. He "came clean" because he was faced with essentially indisputable evidence. I don't find that to ameliorate the seriousness of the violation. Tan | 39 16:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Right, and it also didn't happen in article space. I checked the rest of his uploads. Most were perfectly legitimate, except for four which were understandable in terms of newcomer errors; he was perfectly polite and cooperative about those. Several experienced Wikipedians are aware of a problem now. So anything questionable he does in future is likely to be watched and consulted about. In general, it seems more productive to let the fellow off with a warning for coming clean under these circumstances. He did save us work in the end by admitting to it; I'd certainly hope that in future people would feel encouraged to tell the truth. Durova306 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As someone who's watched several events unfold w.r.t. Drew, and who has been rooting for his successful return, I think this is a good block. First, I suspect that, had Drew not eventually come clean, the block would have been indefinite. Second, he only came clean when it became completely untenable to maintain the lie; he had already "dug in his heels" for a couple of months, and a lot of people wasted a lot of time on this. This was not "in the past"; as recently as a few days ago, he was still maintaining his innocence in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and this is not the first time for that tactic. Third, this comes on the heels of quite a lot of previous disruption. At some point, the nth "stern warning" begins to lose some of it's power.
Drew, I know that, with friends like me, you don't need enemies, but I think a month off, followed by a slow and careful return with a fresh perspective, would be in your best interests, and Wikipedia's. Get some distance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent, ec) Thinking about this a little bit. There might be a solution that'd be acceptable to everyone. The time I spent looking into this delayed the completion on one image restoration (hence slowed down one featured picture candidate). Drew has an interest in photography and image software, and I train people at restoration. Suppose if all sides are willing, I choose a beginner level restoration project for him and collaborate with him on it. Last night I discovered a set of illustrations by Edouard Manet for a French translation of Edgar Allen Poe's "The Raven". We really ought to have a Manet FP. This would be our first and it would be useful at several articles. Would that be a good reason to unblock if Drew agrees? Durova306 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your thoughts are noted, although I disagree that leniency was the best approach here - he only apologized and "came clean", again, because he was faced with damning evidence. Prior to that he was furthering the charade. I'm not trying to be a hardass or "ban-happy"; my rationale is that I think there is a reasonable chance that further disruption will happen in the future. Apologizing for a violation does not always mean that a block is not appropriate; please remember to take the past problems into account. At any rate, Mr. Smith is certainly welcome to appeal this block, at which point we should probably let a third, preferably uninvolved, admin review the situation. Tan | 39 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the offer stands. I'll be tweaking the color balance on the current restoration, then getting back to something else I was already working on. Here's the image I had in mind for the collaborative restoration. What's happened before with several people is that I select something suitable, they do the easy parts per instructions, I tweak whatever they can't quite do themselves, and we conominate at FPC. If this works out it'd steer Drew toward a productive area where his talents and interests would be put to good use, plus the most knowledgeable and experienced eyes on the site would notice any future problems. Durova306 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

There's not much that I can add to the discussion that has not already been stated, far more eloquently by other people here. However, I *can* understand how a small lie, told simply to avoid being wrong in a discussion (with no expectation of being called on it) could easily snowball out of control when backed into a corner with the realization that admitting to the lie would make one look extremely foolish indeed. FWIW, I don't believe that Drew deliberately went into this with the intention of tricking people into believing that the Venus Flytrap was native to South America - more likely, he quoted something that he thought he remembered hearing/reading somewhere, then made an unwise decision to claim that he'd read it in Darwin's book to avoid looking like the sort of guy who posts 'things that he thought he remembered hearing/reading somewhere' on the RefDesk. Then, when someone questioned him further on that, he realized that he'd look like a total mug if he backed down, so he faked a page from Darwin's book, thinking that people would just assume it was from a different edition... etc... Personally, I wouldn't have blocked Drew for a month - but I do agree that a block was warranted in this case. That said, I doubt that he'll be doing it again, considering how this incident turned out and the likelihood that he'll have several admins watching his every move when his block expires. As far as I can see, his mainspace contribs have been fine and this is rather out of character for him. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than block him, you should discuss this on ANI. Prodego talk 21:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
No need for drama unless Drew at least requests an unblock. Durova306 21:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't feel the need to have my actions endorsed here. Tan | 39 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "I didn't feel the need to have my actions endorsed here"? Anyway I think it should be discussed, at ANI, preferably before the block, but after works too. Prodego talk 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(Just a comment) - I don't think that we can apply AGF anymore considering this, his previous disruption, and the blatant IP vandalism (incidentally I blocked it once due to an AIV report). -- Mentifisto 21:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
As I said above - in light of "coming clean" - I'm inclined to let this one go - but there is a LONG history of problems with this user - check back through his history and you'll see all sorts of issues. This is a matter of trust. Do we trust him not to pull a stunt like this again? What I think is required is not a one-month punitive block - but the absolute cast-iron guarantee that even one teeny-tiny infraction anytime in the future will result in an instant perma-block. If this user does anything like this again then he'll have lost our trust and that's it, he never gets to edit Wikipedia again - zero tolerance. SteveBaker (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
We're agreed that if he steps out of line again, that a lengthy block ought to ensue. Durova306 22:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
That's great that you two agree, but I - as the blocking admin - saw many past warnings and blocks. I suppose you can argue that "he needed ONE MORE REAL, HONEST-TO-GOODNESS, LAST-CHANCE" warning, but I saw differently. I don't see how this is in any way controversial - the guy fabricated a image of a reference. Editors are routinely blocked for much less. Tan | 39 22:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree entirely with Tan. Drew has had numerous "last warnings". It's time to finally say "enough is enough". →javért breakaway 22:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Tan, just because you blocked Drew does not give you any more authority than anyone else has, Durova and myself included. Keep that in mind. On the contrary, I do not think Drew should have been warned again, I would support a permanent ban. However, I did not do that because this is a very unique situation, one which merits discussion about the best course of action. Prodego talk 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Prodego, my point was that I was not required to consult anyone before making this block. What I am resenting is the implications that I did. If you want to discuss it at ANI now, I have no problem with that. Tan | 39 22:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Tan, as someone who took out several hours to investigate this--at the request of one of the administrators who had previously blocked him--it's a bit off-putting to get addressed in boldface afterward. That looks like shouting. Would you prefer I keep silent about such matters in future? If so, I'll not only refrain from opinion about the block, but will stay out of the investigation also. Durova306 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
(after EC)If this had occurred in article space, or in relation to a living person, I'd have indeffed him myself on sight. However, as it was neither of these things and happened somewhat 'behind the scenes' - as it stands at present, I would oppose a permanent ban. Yes, Drew has screwed up badly and alienated/wasted the time of several long-term contributors (and I'd guess that he probably feels incredibly stupid now) - but I'm not going to kick him when he's down. Would anyone else here be satisfied with an apology and a promise not to do anything like this again? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Eh, I apologize for that. I just feel as if I'm being witchhunted here - and I'm not the one going around fabricating references. I should be less sensitive about that; I'm going to go on the passive watch of this page and try to refrain from further commenting. Please note that I have not once said that I would "fight" any unblock request or subsequent unblocking - but I honestly don't think that's going to happen. Tan | 39 22:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Tan. No intention to witch hunt here; mainly I could use a fellow with Drew's skills. If he's amenable. There are lemons here, but I'm willing to bring in the water and sugar if he'll stir the recipe. Durova306 22:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is unfortunately not the first time drew has blatantly lied. In fact I'm not even sure he came clean about the sockpuppet Larry Sanger's revenge (talk · contribs). so the question must be, given he will go to such lengths to falsify evidence and lie about it, can he be trusted? ViridaeTalk 23:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

  • As an uninvolved admin, although I've seen this situation developing, certainly I regard falsification of references as inimical to our collective purpose here, and prevarication in the face of the evidence unacceptable. However, the question is whether the block is intended to be punitive or preventative, and I am in two minds about that. Whereas I note that Drew has not requested an unblock, and I would have preferred to see one, my impression is that the best interests of the encyclopedia should take precedence. In that regard, the question to me is whether Drew's misjudgements and deceptions are sufficient to override his overall contribution record here. On balance, I would reduce the block to time-served, since it seems quite plain that Drew's edits will be under strict scrutiny from now on, and he knows this. I see little possibility of a recurrence and what is essentially a breach of trust. Viridae's comments above do cause me some concern, and a stringent undertaking to use only one account must be on the table, if that is the case. Breach, of course, will have only one natural consequence. Rodhullandemu 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been sleeping, thats why I haven't partook in this discussion. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes Durova, I would be willing to give the image resoration a try, but I don't think I'd be very good at it. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drew R. Smith (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I apologize for my actions, and promise that they will not happen again. I'd also like to point out that I was already in the process of trying to start over when this came up. I have messed up in the past, and I am trying to get past that and return to constructive editing.

Decline reason:

Declined in favor of ongoing threads elsewhere, to take out of unblock on hold category. lifebaka++ 15:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Before this is enacted, comments from the blocking admin would be appreciated; however, Drew's request, to me, is lacking in contrition and commitment to future behaviour, and I would have hoped to have seen that. Having said that, the issue is "what is an appropriate preventative as opposed to punitive for this situation, and I've already set out my stall on that. Drew, please consider refactoring your request for unblocking. Rodhullandemu 00:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think I've commented plenty, above. Drew only apologized after being convicted, so to speak. During the research into the "reference", to further the analogy, he was pleading not guilty. I feel that his history shows that there is a reasonable risk of this behavior continuing in one form or another. I do not give out punitive blocks, in adherence with WP:BLOCKING. I would prefer to see Drew wait out the month - and if he comes back after that, it will show that he is serious about becoming a valuable contributor. I've never seen an apology given so much weight, especially in light of when the apology happened. That all said, I won't contest any alteration of my block. Tan | 39 00:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Without further comment on Drew's appeal, let's move forward with the restoration. Drew: you can download that image from the link I gave you. The easiest way to collaborate is via Skype, which hosts free voice chats and is a good client for file transfers. Email me for my Skype ID and I'll give you pointers to get started. We can trade screenshots etc. as needed. Durova306 00:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I have some concerns about the IP vandalism, sockpuppet accounts, claims of compromised account(s), and so forth. I'd like a really good explanation of what happened there before I weigh in on the extant unblock discussion (which seems to largely focus on the source forgery). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Note for reviewing admin: even the explanation Drew provided in his admission above is, ahem, unconvincing. Of course the mechanics of the source fabrication are immaterial as far as the content issue is concerned, but the continued mendacity with the truth is not promising. Abecedare (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break Abecedare! I put the thing in ms paint for crying out loud, half the stuff their saying I did I've never even heard of much less no how to do! I can re-do it and post the step by step process if that'll put your mind at ease, but personally I think you're being a bit silly.
@TenOfAllTrades - The IP vandalism was me, as I have said before. Simple explanation, I got bored. I still maintain that my account was compromised, though I understand, and at this point, don't care that people on't believe me about it. I served my time for that, and its in the past. And I repeat, no sox.
@Durova - I'll check out skype, but I really don't know anything about image restoration. That being said, I would like to learn. - Drew Smith What I've done 01:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure thing. The software to use is either Photoshop or GIMP. If you don't have Photoshop, GIMP is free and open source. I've trained several people before in this so don't worry. You have enough skills to begin. Durova306 01:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I have added a cautionary note to File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg warning the reader that the quote has been fabricated, so that this image does not become a further source of false information. If there is a template to mark "photoshopped" images, feel free to add that too. Abecedare (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't just delete the image? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering the exact same thing. It serves no purpose whatsoever. →javért breakaway 23:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was being retained to analyze Drew's past and current claims on how it was created. But if that purpose has been served, it should be deleted as a hoax. Aside: I'm shocked that Insectivorous Plants is a redlink; anyone game for writing up a stub ? Some good may come out of this sorry affair. Abecedare (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ;-). →javért breakaway 00:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, you redirected it to Carnivorous plants. There is still no article on Darwin's book titled, Insectivorous Plants. Abecedare (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought you meant the plants themselves. An article about the book should go at Insectivorous Plants (book) or Insectivorous Plants (Darwin book). →javért breakaway 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I should have been clearer that I was referring to the book. I'll create a stub this weekend, if someone doesn't do it before then. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
If I get unblocked I can help. A book like this should at least get a decent sized article. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Modest Proposal[edit]

I have a suggestion. Drew has been a good contributor, and I would like to see him stay with us. However, his recent behavior has been unacceptable. To simplify all this drama, I would like to propose this.

  1. Drew remains blocked for a month, a mandatory Wikibreak where he can step back and decide if and how he wants to participate constructively in the future.
  2. If Drew has ANYTHING he is hiding - additional source fabrication, hidden socks, etc etc - he is requested to admit to it here and now, with the promise of no greater "punishment" than his current block. That is if, and only if, any past bad behavior is fully admitted to here and now.
  3. Once Drew's block expires, he is welcome to rejoin us as a contributor under the condition that ANY further serious bad behavior will be considered a violation of his amnesty and will lead to a community ban proposal at WP:AN. Any past bad behavior that was not admitted but discovered in the future would also be considered in violation of this amnesty.
  4. Drew would be advised to accept mentoring from an experienced editor, preferably an admin, who would monitor his actions and his compliance with this agreement, but also act as his advocate and coach in being a constructive Wikipedian.

I propose this as a compromise between those of us who are wary of Drew's past deceit, and those of us who would like to extend him additional rope for rehabilitation. However, it should be noted, this would be the very last chance.

Thoughts?

Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Short answer? No. There are several points I don't agree with. One, remaining blocked probably isn't the best course. I "fessed up" and figured that since it was so old and I came clean a block wouldn't be neccessary. At this point, the block is not preventing anything, and is only there as a punishment. Two, mentoring ain't going to happen. I know the policies, and pretty much everything else that a mentor would be able to teach. I've been a mentor myself, and I know that it rarely does anything except put the mentee(?) under stress and humiliation. In fact, the only thing I agree with about your proposal is the coming clean of everything. You'll be disappointed to know that there isn't anything else. Just the IP vandalism, the compromised account, the copyvio photos, and the fake reference. - Drew Smith What I've done 01:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
With all due respect, at this point, I see the block as more of an imposed Wikibreak - you may want to think carefully about your past actions here and how you can be a better contributor in the future. Distance, I find, helps us think more clearly. And if you know the policies and everything else a mentor could teach, it seems you have flagrantly, and somewhat unrepentantly, violated them, time and again. This is rather disturbing. And I'm actually relieved to know there isn't anything else in your closet, to tell you the truth. This is an olive branch, Drew, because I have half a mind to start a ban discussion at the admin noticeboard myself, because I'm rather sick of finding your talk page alive with controversy time and again, and I think you've come to the point of exhausting the community's patience. Please, I speak not with the intention to strike you down, but to help build you back up, in a way acceptable to the understandably wary community. It really is in your best interest. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Respectfully, I disagree with you. Distance won't help anything. I already "[thought] carefully about [my] past actions here and how [I] can be a better contributor in the future". I was already trying to start over under a new username when all this came up. As I've said before, this block is punitive, and isn't helping anything. - Drew Smith What I've done 01:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well. With a heavy heart, I must inform you that a discussion has been started here at AN. I have requested that you be unblocked so as to be able to participate in the discussion. Respectfully, Vicenarian (Said · Done) 01:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here you are blatantly lying about the photo. Blatantly. Your persistent assertions that this block is punitive (funny that you latch on to the one possible technicality that could get you unblocked) only shows me that this block is preventing further disruption. I'm all for assuming good faith, but I am not a fool. We shouldn't offer an infinite number of opportunities for editors to make themselves useful. Here, Drew states "just the IP vandalism, the compromised account, the copyvio photos, and the fake references". "Just"?! This doesn't even mention the alleged sockpuppet issue. To paraphrase WP:COMPETENCE - if after multiple warnings and blocks, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and turn your mentoring efforts to a better candidate. Tan | 39 01:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Then why a month block? Why not indefinite? I realise this has now taken a new turn, but please, let's maintain at least a simulacrum of consistency. Rodhullandemu 01:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A simulacrum? Uh, okay. Please note that I am replying to the candidate's responses now, as compared to when I blocked, which was earlier. His reaction to this block is what I am referring to. Where have I been inconsistent? I have explained my stance exhaustively on this page, Rodhullandemu. If you can find a very similar situation, in which I didn't act comparably, I will try to explain... but I would think you can't. Tan | 39 02:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(ec)This happened before the "final warning" you speak of. I got the final warning, determined to turn over a new leaf, and got hit with this stuff. Defending myself was a knee-jerk reaction. I came clean, but this is not the reaction I was expecting. And, I see you're latching on to the fact that I'm calling this punitive. Well I'm sorry, but I'm just calling it what it is. - Drew Smith What I've done 01:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Drew: what you may not understand is that editing Wikipedia isn't a right - it's a privilege extended to us all by the Wikimedia foundation for the purpose of writing this encyclopedia. When you aren't useful - or if you are disruptive and waste peoples time (and you've certainly wasted a LARGE chunk of my time digging around Darwin's notes on the book - finding alternate sources of the text, doing image analysis, writing on your talk page, etc), then we simply don't need you and it becomes easier to dump you than to fight. We don't owe you the "right" to stay here...it's a cold, simple, cost/benefit equation. When you add up your total positive contributions - then subtract the time it's taken to deal with all of the problems you've caused - the result is clearly a negative quantity right now. Putting that another way: Had you never come to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would have been better than it is now. What everyone is now trying to estimate is whether the FUTURE benefits of having you here exceed the likely FUTURE costs of catching and fixing the disruption you might cause.

This boils down to a matter of trust. If we could absolutely trust you to keep your nose clean - then noting your positive contributions would make keeping you here a no-brainer. But you've wrecked a lot of people's trust - several times over. Now there is complete uncertainty - we don't know you - we can't tell whether you're just trying to 'lose' the paper trail of past infractions by getting a new user ID so you can go on as before - or whether you honestly mean to change...we just can't tell - and nothing you say will change that because it's impossible to judge someone's intent through a text-only interface.

That's why I don't care much whether you get a 1 month block or not - it doesn't make much difference to the encyclopedia. That's also why I don't think you should have a permanent block - but why you should be given a zero-tolerance warning such that the very next infraction keeps you out of our hair forever. Your likely future benefit to the community is obviously positive - but your likely future drain on our time is an unknown. If you are genuinely going to behave impeccably in the future then that drain is zero and the community wins. If you screw up some more - then we need to keep the 'cost' of getting you out of our hair as low as possible...which is why I believe a zero-tolerance threat of a permanent block is the correct course of action. I advise you to sign up to the four-point plan proposed above (under "Modest Proposal") - and actively advocate that course of action on ANI. I offer no guarantee of success - but that's your best chance. SteveBaker (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN[edit]

The proposal at WP:AN is rediculous! You completely left out the relevant facts, especially the part about the photo forgery happening a long time ago. Not allowing me to speak up there either is quite low. I would have expected someone to unblock me by now so that I could edit there. You also say that my responses have indicated that I will continue to disrupt. Where? I have been polite and helpful the entire time! I apologized, pointed out that I was already trying to start over when this came up. You're response makes me wonder what would be acceptable responses... - Drew Smith What I've done 02:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

@ Vicenarian in response to latest AN posting - Any FURTHER mis-behavior would result in a permanent ban. This happened a long time before that! It's not my fault that it was found after the last warning! - Drew Smith What I've done 02:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think it would've been wise after your last block to come out and say, "Hey, there's this image... it's not right, and I'm sorry." Nope, you continued to defend it to the bitter end AFTER the end of your most recent block and ONLY came clean when confronted with irrefutable evidence. Do you see why this is troubling?
I have asked that you be allowed to contribute at the AN discussion, through transclusion or unblock, as that is only fair. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 02:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A month is not a long time. Prodego talk 02:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are unblocked for the purposes of participating in the ban discussion ONLY. Any edits made outside of WP:AN and this talk page will result in the block being re-instated. ViridaeTalk 02:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Honestly, I forgot all about the image. Once it was brought up, defending myself was a knee-jerk reaction, because I knew I could easily get blocked for it. It was the "irrefutable evidence" that caused me to come clean; I was simply tired of all the arguing at my talkpage and wanted to set the record straight and move on.
And you still haven't addressed or fixed the fact that you left out almost all mention of the fact that this happened a few months ago. You're post at WP:AN make it seem like it happened yesterday. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
(after ec)I think it was closer to two months, but thats shemantics. Point is, it happened before the final warnings and all that. - Drew Smith What I've done 02:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Feel free to clarify the timeline at AN. However, this "knee-jerk" defensive reaction is troubling, to say the least. Much of this could've been avoided if you had come clean. The real problem here is that you don't seem to understand that we are having MUCH difficulty trusting you because of your obfuscations and "knee-jerk" reactions. It doesn't matter when this image was posted, the fact that you continued to the bitter end lying to us is VERY problematic. Vicenarian (Said · Done) 02:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem...[edit]

Shouldn't it be 29 days? I already served one. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As you are undoubtedly aware, Tan has reblocked you for 30, though discussion about an indefinite ban does continue. I know you feel this is punitive and not preventative, but this can't be further from the truth. Not enacting sanctions every time someone apologizes or eventually tells the truth encourages repetition of bad behavior. After you return from this block, should the ban not be enacted, I'm sure you'll think much longer and much harder about being dishonest or vandalizing in the future. AniMatedraw 03:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't bitch about the length. There's still every possibility you could get indeffed. AniMatedraw 03:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Just sit tight and behave for thirty days and we'll see where to proceed from there. I really hope I'm wrong about you, Drew. →javért breakaway 04:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
August has 31 days. I made the reblock 30 to account for this. Tan | 39 06:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. εω (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of List of fish of Hawaii[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of List of fish of Hawaii at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! –Katerenka (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for List of fish of Hawaii[edit]

Updated DYK query On October 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of fish of Hawaii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) 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.

Thanks for the contribution. Halloween DYK?Victuallers (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:CelestialGoldfish.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:CelestialGoldfish.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation.  Skier Dude  ►  06:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi Drew! I saw you were back when I saw the edits at the aquarium fish portal. I know you've been going through a lot, and I've been hoping that things work out well for you. Please feel free to get in touch with me if you feel like discussing anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There was a lot of personal crap going on, and then I let it leak out onto the wiki, and things just got pretty confusing for awhile. I kinda took an impromptu wikibreak after all of it, and took jehochmans advice about re-evaluating why I'm here.
Since I've got your attention, I took the liberty of revamping the Goldfish article, and have nominated it for good article (again. Apparently it used to be a GA and got delisted...) - Drew Smith What I've done 22:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. The more I'm here, the more I find myself thinking: it's only a website, not worth sweating if it isn't fun. Anyway, I think that working on fish-related pages is an area where we really need your input. I'll take a look at goldfish, although I won't get to it for a day or two. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
With regard to GA, I've made a lot of mostly minor edits at goldfish. From my recent experience with the successful GAR at brain, I observed that current GA reviewers seem to care a lot about those kinds of things. Another thing they seem to look for is to have at least one inline cite for every paragraph. That will take a lot of work in the case of goldfish, but I figured I'd let you know. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:GoldfishVarieties.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:GoldfishVarieties.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ZooFari 07:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Map of Fort Hood[edit]

That map is almost certainly not of Fort Hood. It doesn't match any of the other maps available online. From the caption from Flickr and the content of the map itself, my guess is that it's the map of the Fort Hood *cemetery*. --Golbez (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You may very well be right. Do we know of any other maps of Fort Hood to compare to? - Drew Smith What I've done 07:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
None with any detail. But the shape of it doesn't match the municipal shape, and the fact that the map your map is based on is of an obviously small area (considering how large the buildings and fields are), whereas the whole of Fort Hood is large enough to quarter 50,000 people. --Golbez (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Was viewing my user page history and discovered you are owed one rabbit:

JumpingRabbit.JPG Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation
Much like rabbits, vandals occur in large numbers and are considered by some to be a nuisance. However while rabbits are cute, vandals are not. For defending my user page from a vandal, and possibly also blocking said vandal, I give you "Nezzadar's Rabbit of Appreciation". Take this random award featuring an image of an adorable mammal, and let it be a sign to others that you fight the good fight. From your completely insane friend,   Nezzadar   .

Strip club[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Drew R. Smith. You have new messages at 220.101.28.25's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Archiving old threads[edit]

Just before you had archived old threads, I made an addition, other then signing unsigned to the section [background and USUHS], can you please un-archive that? Thanks in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll try to find the relevant threads, though it may be faster for you to do it since you know which ones they are. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Adopt me please[edit]

I read that you adopt people who are looking into make new pages. I am working on a page for Authentic, who is an Olympic winner horse. he is about the only thing in ALL of wikipedia that doesnt have a page. please help me...thanks!! *dream on*dance on* 21:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylor Lane (talkcontribs)


File copyright problem with File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILYsock(TALK) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


File source problem with File:Long-beakedEchidna.gif[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Long-beakedEchidna.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Folgersonurbutt.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Folgersonurbutt.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Skier Dude (talk) 07:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Echidna, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Anaxial (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Echidna, Exmouth.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jack "Red Hood" Napier[edit]

See wp:ani#Disruptive signature && wp:ani#user talk:Jack Merridew, which I believe you are already aware of. I've stated there and elsewhere that I believe I've identified Red Hood as being a sock of yours. Jack Merridew 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Drew R. Smith, too. Jack Merridew 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Wewillfuckyouup.ogg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wewillfuckyouup.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


File permission problem with File:Player at Island Paintball.jpg[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Player at Island Paintball.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


File permission problem with File:Player at Island Paintball.png[edit]

Copyright-problem.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Player at Island Paintball.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pompom.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pompom.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Knight Goby.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Knight Goby.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Diagram of swine flu.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Diagram of swine flu.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Abramites hypselonotus.JPG[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Abramites hypselonotus.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked[edit]

Per the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drew R. Smith, I've blocked this account indefinitely, along with all the socks for abusive sock puppetry. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current Moon[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Current Moon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Current moon Formating[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Current moon Formating has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NextMoonTime[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:NextMoonTime has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Community banned[edit]

I regret to inform you that based on a discussion [5] at the Administrators' noticeboard, you have been community banned from the English Wikipedia.

The term is indefinite; I would suggest you wait at least six months before seeking to be unblocked - at which point you can appeal to the community (by using the {{unblock}}) template), or the Ban appeals subcommittee. –xenotalk 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh my...[edit]

I... Why...? Programmer101TalkWhat I do 15:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


To anyone that cares[edit]

My previous behavior is inexcusable, however I do believe the people who's time I wasted deserve an adequate explanation. I am not asking for my ban to be lifted; I plan to follow the guidelines in Durova's standard offer, and earn back the communities trust.

Way back when I first started editing (I really don't remember how long ago it was, I think arround a year-ish) I edited mostly articles about fish. After a month or two I decided that I knew what I was doing here and decided to take on adoption. Fortunately for the people I adopted, that all went off without a hitch. Adoption however, was not very fulfilling.

So I decided to start helping out with whacking-vandals. For the most part, that went ok. There were a few minor hitches, and once I had my rollback permissions removed, however that situation was fairly quickly sorted out.

When I noticed one of my graduated adoptee's had started a vandal fighting project (can't remember the name) I joined, and offered support in the following MFD. The project was deleted. Upset, and confused as to why, I took to trolling, mostly with throwaway socks. However, the trolling soon stopped, and I tried to return to normal editing. I also began editing at citizendium.

One day, someone asked a question about the venus flytrap, and I said something about them being from South America. When questioned, I claimed to have read it in Charles Darwins Insectivorous Plants (not a lie, but bad memory). When questioned further, I panicked, and fabricated a fake photo of a copy of the book.

Later, my fiance left me, so I took a wikibreak. After the break, I began trolling some more, attacking Jimbo's userpage. In retrospect, I think its a bit stupid, but at the time it seemed to be of the utmost importance that that be fixed. Of course, afterward I made an arbcom case against the blocking admin, and then pretended my account had been compromised. (Yes, that was an admission of guilt).

After a short time of mostly anti-vandalism, someone called my bluff on the fabricated photo. I panicked yet again, and continued to claim that it was real. Eventually, I admited it, and got blocked.

During the block I attempted to do the image restoration thing with Durova, but was unable due to my internet connection being extremely slow, thus being unable to upload the restored image. After the block, I tried to return to constructive editing.

Eventually though, I got tired of the stigma that was tied to my username and decided to make a clean start account. Jack "Red Hood" Napier. I did not intend to troll. My only intention was to create a cool userpage, and then begin editing paintball articles. When Jack asked me to change my userpage, I did, but not very willingly. When asked to change my signature I tried several different ways of achieving the same effect, but found that all were unacceptable, and was soon engaged in drama with other editors. After being forced to reveal my old account name Durova began looking through all my contributions, piling up images that were uploaded in violation of the copyright policy. That, in addition to the cut and paste of my article from citizendium to wikipedia, I was blocked and community banned.

So now I realise, I do not know much about the inner workings of wikipedia. I uploaded copyrighted pictures because I thought no-one would care. I cut and pasted my article from citizendium because I thought it belonged to me. It was my words, so no-one else could tell me I couldn't use them. Apparently I was wrong. I didn't think any of it was a very big deal. When I created the Jack Napier account I truly wanted a fresh start, but quickly become entrapped in the very things I was trying to get away from.

Again, I'm not asking for the ban to be lifted now (though that would be nice;). All I'm asking is that after the six months or so, after I've done work at other projects, after I ask for the ban to be lifted, please look at my request mercifully. - Drew Smith What I've done 06:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Drew R. Smith/Goldfish[edit]

Hello Drew R. Smith, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, User:Drew R. Smith/Goldfish, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:Jason Quinn. This has been done because the page was created in violation of a ban (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:Jason Quinn. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of Jason Quinn (talk · contribs) 05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, not quite sure what to say to that. I obviously dont want it deleted, but I really dont think anyone will even bother to look here. And I did not create it in violation of a ban, it was made a long time ago. Not that anybody really cares. - Drew Smith What I've done 08:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Cillit Bang[edit]

User talk:92.29.125.209 I didn't make any changes to the article.The Moving Finger Writes

I have no idea what you are talking about. - Drew Smith What I've done 08:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Gobioides Broussonneti.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gobioides Broussonneti.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Drew R. Smith (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I am requesting my block and community ban to be lifted per Durovas "Standard Offer", and the explanation and apology offered above. I have learned my lesson and have been succesfully rehabilitated.

Decline reason:

Discussion at WP:AN seems to indicate little support for unbanning at this time. Given the discussion there, and on this talk page, I have some suggestions. 1) Take some time to work at a sister project, like Wikinews or Simple English Wikipedia, and become an upstanding, rule abiding user there. 2) Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's image usage and copyright rules, and be clear in your text unblock request (wait a while) that you understand exactly why your prior behavior in this realm was wrong. Good luck next time. Jayron32 06:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Given that this was enacted by a community discussion, there needs to be a new community discussion to rescind it. I will start that discussion presently. Lets see where it goes. --Jayron32 03:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A new discussion has been started at WP:AN. If you have any relevent information, or would like to respond to any comments and questions other make over there, I can copy-paste anything you write here to there if you would like. --Jayron32 03:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
A relevant question has been asked - Have you made positive contributions at another Wikimedia project while you've been banned here? If you haven't and the consensus is against unbanning you, suggest you go away for six months and find another project to contribute to - then come back and point to that as proof of reform. Exxolon (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I have made positive contributions to wikinews under the same username, though not regularly, only when something newsworthy happened in my area. And I believe I contributed to wikispecies as well, but I'm can't remember. - Drew Smith What I've done 00:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I have copied that into the discussion. Exxolon (talk) 09:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that consensus is against my return, so I guess I'll just wait, and hope for a better outcome next time around. I won't be checking my talk page regularly for awhile, so if the unban discussion takes an unexpected turn email me to let me know. Goodbye wikipedia, at least for another 3-6 months. - Drew Smith What I've done 01:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of waiting and trying again, later. You want back? Go immerse yourself in one of the other projects; make thousands of useful edits and wait for one of the leaders of that community to offer to propose your return, here. Jack Merridew 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Seconded, with the caveat that the leader's endorsement is not required, but may count in your favour. Come back in six months with a solid positive contribution record on another project and the community will probably lift your ban. Exxolon (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter[edit]

Discus fish.jpg
The Aquarium Fishes WikiProject Newsletter
Issue XII - January 2011
News
Discussions & Collaborations
Other
  • Happy New Year!
  • We are now ready to restart the awards program, but no one has done it yet. If you are up for the challenge please come forward.

File:Waikiki Aquarium3.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Waikiki Aquarium3.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Waikiki Aquarium4.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Waikiki Aquarium4.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Waikiki Aquarium5.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Waikiki Aquarium5.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Chambered Nautilus1.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chambered Nautilus1.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Noos.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Noos.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:Adenoviridae tree.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Another one of your uploads, File:Apyri tree.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Baculoviridae tree.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Blacktip Reef Shark.JPG, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 13:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Caelum Tree.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Calcarii tree.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Another one of your uploads, File:Caudovirales tree.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Jellyfish2.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jellyfish2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Jellyfish4.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jellyfish4.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Jellyfish5.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jellyfish5.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)