User talk:Smartestguy5

Hi Smartestguy5! 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 AmaryllisGardener (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Lawyer, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Per WP:BRD when you have been undone it is up to you to discuss the contested edits on the article's talk page. I agree with the first undo. Your changes were not an improvement. And read WP:MINOR. It is never a minor edit to restore contested material. Meters (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Judicial scrivener. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Solicitor. Meters (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I submit links then why not you improve them? by the way, OK. I only submit links and some articles. so dont remove them. what is the reason to remove links even its from wikipedia Smartestguy5 (talk) 06:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits have been undone by multiple editors. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to discuss the contested material on the articles' talk pages. Meters (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I only submit links and some intro from them very shortly. Is there any of problem????? such introducing countries and its even on wikipedia lol Smartestguy5 (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there is someone who wants to remove articles then I only submit links and short intros from now and even its from Wikipedia. I never started edit wars nor want to do. If there is any of problem, welcome your explains. Smartestguy5 (talk) 06:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Smartestguy5 reported by User:Web SourceContent (Result: ). Thank you. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK? I only submit links including from wikipedia and some intros from them is there any of reason to remove? Smartestguy5 (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who started edit war was not me. by the way i'm smart person therefore I only submit some links and intros from them. I understand there is someone who wants to remove articles so I just add some links from reliable sources and wikipedia. Smartestguy5 (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For information, the main reason I reverted your edits was because your English is so poor. . .Mean as custard (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK I only submit links and short intros from them. Just links and intros from wikipedia and reliable sources.Smartestguy5 (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Smartestguy5: user! If you want to know these rules, please refer to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 06:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Imaginatorium repeatedly reverts all articles with no reason. I just added links and intros in simple English that is all agree. Smartestguy5 (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Smartestguy5. You seem to be edit warring across multiple articles related to the practice of law, such as Lawyer. Many different people have been reverting your edits. If you don't agree to stop and wait for consensus, you are likely to be blocked. You may respond if you wish in the edit warring report, which is located on the noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment to Smartestguy5: You really need to understand that your grasp of English is simply not at the level required for making contributions to English WP, except perhaps by making comments on talk pages. Your writing is ungrammatical, sometimes completely mysterious, and you have not yet learned the basic rules of English, such as the need for spaces between words, after but not before punctuation, and whether or not words are in parentheses. You may not have realised that these rules are quite different from the rules for writing in Japanese. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you Imaginatorium are very malicious and terrible. you pretended to me and put fake articles and did edit wars those accounts are from you. I just added the link and intros that is all true. (Americal lawyer is worst one therefore they are only licensed by state.) Smartestguy5 (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginatorium and those terrible users pretend to me and did edit wars please block those awful low standard group. because those are not mines nor did edit these times. I told you just add links. Smartestguy5 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for Abusing multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

See User talk:Secutoriat. Per a complaint at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

multiple accounts? It's not mine at all. its from bad users such Imaginatorium who wants to make fake news all around with removing links and intros. Smartestguy5 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you saw fit to evade your block using the account Smartestone01 (talk · contribs), I have upgraded your block to indefinite. Favonian (talk) 16:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evade from what? I was not blocked and had no problems. those accounts are not mine. Smartestguy5 (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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/Tikashi, 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.

Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not me. those accounts must be from Imaginatorium, who wants to expand fake news with reverting my edit. If you can check IP address its not me. American lawyer is very low standard and criticized inside/outside. they believe they are right but failed and no one trusts them. Smartestguy5 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A checkuser confirmed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smartestguy5 that the accounts Fact398 (talk · contribs) and Basedonfact (talk · contribs) are actually you. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]