User talk:SmiJO13

July 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scrotima, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Scrotima was changed by SmiJO13 (u) (t) blanking the page on 2008-07-10T19:35:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh! Sorry bout that. Just trying to say that db-hoax is not a valid template. MKolt now 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to The FLOW Devil constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tag removal[edit]

Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from ages you created yourselves, regardless on whether an explanation is offered. An admin will stop by and judge over it. Removal of speedy tags is considered vandalism. Since you have already removed them several times, and since a new (likely WP:SPA account named Wikiedits01 suddenly showed up, it can leave a bad impression. I would kindly request that the tag is left intact until and admin removes it. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 20:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The FLOW Devil[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The FLOW Devil, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The FLOW Devil. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? GlassCobra 21:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

_GB^T/C 21:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

SmiJO13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is not vandalism and I have followed Wikipedia's policy by contesting the previously proposed deletion by adding notes to the discussion page. Please clarify reason for block.

Decline reason:

Nothing but vandalism from this account. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SmiJO13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The FLOW Devil is not vandalism. It is an urban legend that was not accepted by Wikipedia editors. This does not warrent a block since I posted my explanations on the FLOW Devil's talk page but to no advail. The block is unjust as the page does not constitute vandalism.

Decline reason:

Recreating a page, especially after a formal deletion discussion on it, and creating obvious and transparent hoax articles like that and Scrotima, is considered vandalism. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

{unblock| I did not create Scrotimia, if you check the history you will see that I restored the Speedy Delete CS3 tag. And there is no hoax, this FLOW Devil is accepted legend with graduate societies. Please check your records more carefully before making false accusations. According to Wikipedia regulations:

1. The edits of the user you are reporting must be considered vandalism. 2. The user must be active now. 3. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

- In regards to #1: From Wikipedia regulations: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism.

Also, in addition it is also mentioned in Wikipedia's policy that it is not appropriate to block an IP indefinetly as mine has been.

Please explain how listing an article that is considered an urban legend is considered vandalism according to this definition and take into consideration the above points. }

Stand by, please, as I contact the blocking admin about your block. Sandstein 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sandstein SmiJO13 (talk) 18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this account did not originally create either The FLOW Devil or Scrotima, and in fact was helpfully tagging the latter of the two for deletion. Repeatedly removing the speedy tag from TFD was arguably inappropriate, and I'm dubious as to the article's propriety, but the user seems to be more new and misguided than actively malicious. That being the case, education and explanation seem to be better options than indefinite blocking, unless I'm missing something here. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, you're missing that this appears to be the same editor as:

Wikiedits01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Thelaughingscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

who created those articles. Perhaps there is an explanation for this? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're obviously related, but I don't think they're the same person. A few mistakes needn't mean we push someone out from ever contributing. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If the fact that they edited the same articles from the same IP within three minutes of each other isn't questionable, I guess I'll trust your judgment. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd and questionable, sure, but not necessarily so much of either to demand an indefinite block be applied. It's not so unusual for multiple machines at a university to share an IP. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Institutional coworker, who by the way did not create Scrotima. The TFD article is about an accepted legend around here as well as other graduate institutes. Perhaps admins such as jpgordon should not be so overzealous when it comes to blocking and take time to address concerns that are brought up. I joined when I found out that you could edit articles. Clearly from the response thus far newbs are not appreciated in this community. SmiJO13 (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the good intentions, it would be very helpful if you could verify this via some reliable sources. Has this been written about in any mainstream publications? If so, please mention/link or something. If not, this might not be an appropriate subject for a Wikipedia article -- I'm inclined to support an unblock or block reduction, if you seem to be reasonable about this. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable to me Luna Santin, I'll look for some references, otherwise how do I request that an article be generated if I cannot find a hard copy publication? I appreciate your efforts in this matter. SmiJO13 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Following your pledge to observe Wikipedia's rules in the future, I've unblocked you after discussion with the blocking admin. Any future disruption may lead to an immediate re-block.

Request handled by: Sandstein 08:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]