This is an archive of past discussions about User:Smith Jones. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Smith Jones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.
There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:== MY NEW TALK PAGE ==
Please TAKE ANY COMPLAINS TO THE FOURTH (PENDING) ARCHIVE ABOVE
Please stop marking talk page posts and other big things as 'Minor' edits. Try to keep that to grammar and spelling changes and the like. Thanky. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
You replied to Consumed Crustacean saying, "SORRY ABOUT thst i think it does the minor edit thing automatically." No, the "Minor edit" thing does not happen automatically. It happens when you check the box next to "This is a minor edit" when editing a page. Please see Help:Minor edit to learn when it is appropriate to set something as a minor edit.
Also, do not put your replies at the top of people's talk pages, doing so disorganizes the replies. You should always add new sections to talk pages using the "+" tab, which will add a new section at the bottom. As long as you do not mark the reply as minor the person will be notified of your reply there, so there is no reason place it at the top of the talk page as you did. I moved your reply to the bottom of his talk page for you. Please see Wikipedia:Talk pages#Using talk pages for the proper use of talk pages.
Your talk page reply to Consumed Crustacean was marked as a minor edit again, which is what he had just asked you not to do. Because of that he would not have been alerted to your reply. This is part of why you need to be careful not to set that wrong. This is not the first time you've been alerted to this problem.
Finally, you should not archive ongoing discussions on your talk page. If people need to reply, and the discussion is already in your archive, you won't be notified about replies there and they may be important. Please read Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page to see when you should archive discussions on your talk page. Thank you. :-) -- HiEv08:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is possible that edits may be checked as minor by default. Go to the editing tab at Special:Preferences and one of the options is "Mark all edits minor by default". Uncheck that option and press "Save" to remedy your problem. UnaLaguna12:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thank you for your kind help UnaLaguna i did what ytou said and the section marks everything minor by defualt. i unclicked it so it should stop. Smith Jones19:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that. I didn't think that there might be an option to have all edits marked as minor. It seems like an option that would cause problems more often than it would be helpful. -- HiEv23:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey dude, sorry to have reverted you again, [1]. If you create an article for her, that would be great, but linking to the dab page, where the "Sally Morgan (psychic)" link wasn't a Wikipedia article dab, wasn't the way to do it. Let me know if you need more info on any of that stuff! – Dreadstar†20:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Sally Morgan (psychic)), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NeilN22:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --NeilN22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Your article didn't assert the notability of its subject under the WP:BIO criteria. It might be better to keep your article in a sandbox user sub-page and work it up there before moving it in to the main space. There, every article is equally available for review no matter how old it is. (aeropagitica)22:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
Critique
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. HighwayReturn to Oz...10:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against vandalism using pagemoves. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Syrthiss12:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --digital_me(Talk•Contribs)04:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has to "stalk" you ... everyone who has edited a page and automagically added it to their watchlist (like I have with Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein) sees what you do. It's just that most of us leave it to the administrators to revert your vandalism.
I saw the advance fee fraud thing, but Mrs. Abacha sent me a real passport (I had it verified by my buddy who works at the DMV) and signed a legal document promising me my cut of the money if I help her get it out of the country. She also swore me to confidentiality, of course, but I'm pretty sure that she doesn't mean Internet secrecy. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)
You can't be serious. I'm not sure what you meant by them sending you a passport, but it's easy to fake a passport enough that it looks legit passed through fax or e-mail. That's besides the point; it could be a legit (stolen) passport. You send the money, the contact number will be disconnected and you'll no longer hear from them. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't feed the troll! It's fairly obvious that this user has a form of Munchausen syndrome and just wants the attention. I'm removing this page from my watchlist, and suggest you do the same ... we'll get dragged back here Some Other Day when their vandalism attracts our attention again. <Heavy Sigh!> --Dennette02:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
== How rude. I've read that article, and most of the descriptions are barely fitting how I feel right now. I do not fake/induce injuries and I've never held an inordinate fascination with hospitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Civil engineering, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. ÆonInsanity Now!EA!02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and other deliberate attempts to disrupt Wikipedia are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from rudeness and nonsense
After observing your ostensibly humorous comment at Talk:James Randi#Suspicious Likeness?, and then your continued insistence on this baseless absurdity, I decided to see where you are "coming from". You currently state on your user page that "love wikipeida and want to see it succeed", yet you have committed a variety of offenses against civil editing. Including the actions which have earned you the above warnings, I note that you seem to resort to insulting other editors and mocking their efforts ([2], [3], [4], [5]), which is hardly in keeping with WP:CIVIL. If you really do want to see Wikipedia succeed, and aren't just pulling our chains, please consider that we try to work together to add sourced, neutrally-worded information to articles. A little humor now and then can be refreshing, but rudeness only makes this cooperative effort more difficult. Please try to cooperate, not provoke. Thank you for listening. ~ Jeff Q(talk)03:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
My Work
I am currently working on nominating egregriously bad and non-notable articles for speedy deletion and trying to clear up all the garbage and POV that consistently plagues the "psuedo science" articles. My current article that I am attempting to maintain is the Kevin Trudeau article, which is easily one of the most vile pieces of slander that I have ever seen on this site, which NORMALLY has an excellent reputation for being constantly self-repairing and weeding out the witless and the illogical. Smith Jones23:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Dude, a noble goal to be sure. But if you really hate misspellings, you might want to correct the two on your user page. Otherwise it looks a bit silly. Also, you might want to hold off calling people dumbass[6] and other such insults. Jquarry00:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. -- Fyslee06:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Smith Jones, I have now restored all the material that you removed from this talk page. If you want to be treated with respect and considered a good faith editor, do not try this type of devious behavior again. Keep in mind that everything you do here at Wikipedia is being watched by numerous editors, and it doesn't involve stalking. Just be honest, follow the rules, and collaborate with all editors, especially those who hold opposing POV. Not only will you actually survive the experience, you will learn from it and your edits will have a chance of surviving, even when your back is turned. -- Fyslee06:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
hi i wanted to speak to you about your rrevision of the Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About article. the citation needed tag did not beeed to be removd because acccoding to the guidleins for articles on a real people all mesaages like the 'Convicted felon' addition need to be cited in order to remain int he atirlce. Kevin Trudea's convicted felon status was no cited and we need ctiation for that. could you please come t to the talk page for article? Smith Jones23:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This reversion was part of an hour's worth of reverting edits made by you in violation of just about every rule we have here at Wikipedia. This particular edit isn't the worst example though; it went against WP:Consensus and WP:Point. Especially since your previous edit to the article had already been reverted as an obvious attempt at whitewashing in violation of WP:NPOV. You are currently following a well-known vandalism pattern. It looks like you're going through the motions of being a serious editor but the net effect of your edits is - usually, with a good edit thrown in every once in a while - mutilation of good encyclopedic content and disruption of talk page discussions. Since you had already been made aware of Wikipedia's rules on many occasions by others and after being blocked from editing twice are still introducing insidious vandalism to articles that are apparently not sufficiently watched by other editors, I will no longer assume good faith and consider most of your article edits vandalism and most of your edit summaries and talk page contributions trolling. Please understand that many editors have assumed good faith with you for a long time and you're still damaging the encyclopedia. I for one cannot assume good faith any longer unless you stop your current behavior and start adhering to the rules.
Regarding your invitation to discuss this on the talk page: No thanks, I was just doing some vandal fighting and don't want to get involved in the discussion on this article. If you still insist on placing that FACT tag, you should try to convince the other editors involved in the article, such as User:Consumed Crustacean of the necessity to do so. And remember that it takes longer than zero seconds or 36 minutes to build a consensus or find there is none. However, if you insist on citations and want to be taken seriously as an editor again in the future, you shouldn't ignore consensus. Example of a positive contribution you may want to make if you want to prevent further WP:Point accusations or vandalism reversions: it would help if you simply clicked on the link immediately following the removed FACT tag and copied one or more of the citations found there into the article. AvB ÷ talk11:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Smith_Jones, why don't you try and prove me wrong? Adding a cite to the "convicted felon" assertion would really be a start. As you may have seen, I fell for the temptation and gave my opinion on the article's talk page. AvB ÷ talk09:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
i HAVE BEEN trying to find cites to the conviccted felon thing but all i can find is wikkipedia plaigrism cites like answers.com that brekas the rules. Smith Jones22:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did you remove the links to the sites that were critical of Ravenwolf? The article Wicca for the Rest of Us site was written by someone who was published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject, and the e-cauldron site has a large library of articles. Asarelah04:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the article should be deleted, then please place {{hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. --NeilN 22:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
