Smallness88

Smallness88, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Rere

Hi Smallness88! 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 Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Margaret Murray— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been or will be reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Margaret Murray, you may be blocked from editing. DVdm (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Margaret Murray. DVdm (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppression of Suppression, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

SummerPhD^v2.0 01:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Also, there are discretionary sanctions relating to fringe science and pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After reviewing your edits, I see that you pushed for autoconfirmed status, immediately engaged in vandalism, and then went off trolling at the refdesks. Also, even if you weren't obviously a sock, the rest of your behavior would leave no one objecting to labeling you as a sock. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Whå? Sockpuppet? Whoa! That's a big word!!

Indef block??

Why?

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).

Smallness88 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

why m I block? Smallness88 (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Any more silly responses here and you will lose your ability to edit this talk page. After further consideration, I have revoked your ability to edit this talk page, as there is no way this sock account will be unblocked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

---

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.