User talk:SmithGraves

SmithGraves, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi SmithGraves! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

I added information about Italy and its history, I didn't think I was doing nationalist propaganda. The next time I will put sources DavideVeloria88 (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spaniards, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berber (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 12:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't have to block you for being pompous and tedious. Drmies (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked indefinitely without any proof

Decline reason:

Behavioural and/or technical evidence strongly suggests that this account is a sockpuppet. Simple denial is not considered a sufficient reason to unblock the account. In order to be unblocked, you will need to convince the reviewing administrator that there is a better explanation for this apparent connection than the abuse of multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:26, 13 November 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

There is no proof that I am the user that I am accused of, nor has evidence been published that proves that I am indeed JamesOredan. I think you can't block someone indefinitely without even starting an investigation.

Decline reason:

This, and your comments below, show Wikipedia is best served by leaving you blocked. Yamla (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2019 (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.

Well there's plenty of proof, but if it makes you happy, I added a note to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesOredan, so someone will probably be along shortly to place the proper tags on your user pages. Later, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies (talk) Oh thanks. I am very sorry that you are so bad about that, you must have had a lot of work being 24 hours the 7 days of your surely sad life behind the screen of a computer getting angry with anonymous Internet users. You are surely a happy person, yes hahaha

Thanks :)

I've revoked TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]