User talk:Alwayssmileguys

Many days

I want to smile always :)

A kitten for you!

Too much of your page seemed like a downer, so I thought you could use a curious kitten to brighten it up!

MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 03:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I see deletionist's are attacking your writing efforts on Alexander Draghici! This is for not giving up your fight of a worthy article!!! MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, I think your amazing!

I think your ability to keep going in the face of all this negativism is simply amazing! If you'll notice most editors aren't writers, but critics and deleters. Writing is difficult, however, the latter two is extremely easy. Dropping this article here since I thought you might want to read another individuals story about Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't want you! How Deletionists are making sure Wikipedia Isn’t awesome. Cheers! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC

Thanks.. Cheers ! Why i dont knw these people do these false arguments to delete articles ? Always :) 19:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Because they are living in a bubble and don't see the bigger picture and the problems it's creating.

P.S. Anyone who can copy/paste can place any sort of baseless warning on your talk page. I like to think of them as awards! I make them prominent and never, ever delete them. Nothing comes of them (mainly because of Wikipedia's Boomerrang rule which is basically a brilliant way to further victimize the victim) and they are not worth the paper their printed on. See my talk page. --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 19:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD culture

There is a discussion about AFD culture going on at Village pump that I thought you might be interested in. I've found that one of the greatest oddities about Wikipedia is how they valiantly go about hiding info. Or the continual creation of policy being done by not informing editors. Cheers! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Let me check it . Always :) 07:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your participation

Thanks for joining the Women in Religion Virtual Edit-a-thon, 5 to 15 December 2015, hosted by Women in Red. Over 125 articles were created or expanded. Your contributions are appreciated! Hope you will also join us for the WiR Women in Music Virtual Edit-a-thon from 10 to 31 January.--Ipigott (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cautionary tale

If you had not deleted my warnings from your Talk page, you would not have needed to ask me why I deleted your article, as it was explained there. Maybe you are not aware that these are still present in the page history. Deb (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw the revision history , as i wanted it clean i deleted those , but do let me know was that due to the promotion kind of writing ? Have you speeded it? I had not got chance to contest it . I wish to rewrite the article. What shall i follow to recreate it ?

Thanks . Always :) (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could try the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial to help you rewrite it to meet the guidelines. There is nothing to stop you creating a new article with the same name as long as you don't use the same wording. Deb (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the info Always :) (talk) 10:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

I see you added a userbox here to your talk page stating you are an administrator. This is misleading because you are not an administrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading to whom ? I have my choices of placing things in my space and please don't indulge if its not against rules. If its against wiki rules do let me know. Thanks. Always :) (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Magnolia677. You are not admin and should not use any userbox which claims that you are. Please remove it. Meters (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright No worries ! I am removing it as many are requesting and are conserned with my page. Thanks for stalking into my page continuously .

Always :) (talk) 07:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too late!

Hi Always, unfortunately I believe I'm too late. Unless you've archived it? Here's a tip, the sec you go live with an article send it to http://archive.is/. I've got mine bookmarked! I did check into it a bit and believe since most of the info is in Spanish it makes it more difficult getting deletionist to accept this subject as an article. I wish there were more editors who had your positivism and pro-active attitude here on Wikipedia. I expect Wikipedia will eventually fail due to pervasive negativism and paranoia. In fact, the main reason Wikipedia is doing as well as it is right now has more to do with Google than anything else!

Bit tied up with the Holiday's, but I wanted to write a quick response for you! Cheers! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy Holidays Always :) (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the Holiday's

		Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
		Greetings Always :), Hope you have a great Christmas day and a happy holiday season. Cheers! MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 20:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that 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 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am surprised by this . Tell me the reason for the block ? Sockpuppet ? Its evident in the https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Alwayssmileguys that i dont use sockpuppet ? Then whats is the reason for this block . Sad :( Always :) (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Yes, paid-editing is sad. The SPI only showed that one account was unrelated (User:LionelsMother). It was already obvious to me that you are a paid-editor; the SPI simply confirms it and provides an additional and clear rationale for indefinite blocking (either engaging in sockpuppetry or being one of many paid-editors editing from the same location). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:30, 25 December 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

Wiki doesnt hinder creating more accounts and I havent used those accounts to hinder wiki policies or to vote or used abusively ? So why is this block ? I request for unblocking. This is sad :( Always :) (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have carefully reviewed all the articles created and it's clear that is was a well developed sock farm where the accounts supported each other over numerous obscure articles in a very short period of time. In many cases, the only two editors in some articles were the master and one of the socks. Several articles had been previously deleted for copyright violations in the past and had be re-created multiple times. Lastly in several articles, it was very apparent the subjects did not meet our notability standards but promotional information was provided including deeply personal information about the subjects without a source being present. These are among traits that consistently appear from sock farms such as WP:Orangemoody. The SPI itself revealed huge numbers of sock farms being used to specifically conduct certain tasks like removal of deletion and maintenance tags, things the article creator is generally prohibited from doing, in what I believe was done in order to game the system. All these factors combined show a clear disregard for our policies including the mandatory disclosure of paid editing practices. Mkdw ^talk 03:19, 27 December 2015 (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.

And how can you accuse me of paid editing ? It is terrible again. For my small mistakes why are you accusing. Being a blocked member , i feel so low to defend , though its sad again. ? Always :) (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a paid editor via WP:DUCK behavioral patterns. When you spend enough time around here it becomes quite easy to spot. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have positive proof that they are a paid editor, please drop that info here. One thing I can't stand here on Wikipedia are all these unnecessary aggressive attacks against editors without any evidence. And that WP:DUCK essay is just comically wrong! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MurderByDeadcopy: confirmation at Talk:Seattle Seafair Commodores that Alwayssmileguys was engaged by a company as a paid editor. Any further questions? Mkdw ^talk 04:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest here, that only creates more questions. I guess I was expect a bit more professionalism and decorum when dealing with matters such as this. It doesn't seem necessary to pile-on virulence after socking has been proven. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I have several more questions for this editor as it's taken a considerable amount of cleanup following the SPI -- and they continue to be a problem by creating more accounts to harass other editors who investigated them. When there are several violations, especially ones as controversial as undisclosed paid editing and plagiarism, no editor should expect to skate by and be evaluated on only one thing, but rather the entirety of their conduct. Secondly, if you have any complains about professionalism or decorum other than you liked this editor and you felt we came down on them harshly, then you may bring this up at WP:ANI. Surely you can understand the frustration of some of the editors here in being lied to by the editor and then uncovering massive misconduct. And you may also need to consider that the "pile on" here was done at your request to present evidence beyond socking. Mkdw ^talk 23:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a disabled person and i am interested in writing and I like wiki very much and how can you accuse me of assumptions. WP:DUCK ? Its all assumptions and I feel sorry for the people who dedicated their time in wiki to improve it. You may consider them too as paid editors. And what if i say you are a paid editor for continually stalking at the pages i create ? Its all assumptions. I feel sad :(

Unless it's in a very limited number of exceptions, the creation and operation of multiple accounts is itself against Wikipedia policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCK specifies "for an improper purpose", otherwise it's discouraged but not against policy. Peter James (talk) 10:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would appear this editor is not responsible for all the content created. Alwayssmileguys created the article The Alliance for Independent Authors. Less than 25 minutes after being created, it was edited by Teosocrates. The article Alwayssmileguys created was actually an exact word for word copy and paste of a declined draft submitted by Teosocrates. Alwayssmileguys failed to attribute the work or origin of the content when they made the article which is also another violation of Wikipedia policy. I have re-opened the SPI to see if there's any other similarities between other accounts. Not necessarily CU, but accounts connected through behaviour. Mkdw ^talk 03:59, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Razmig (Comedian) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Razmig (Comedian) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razmig (Comedian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of SOBA Recovery Center

The article SOBA Recovery Center has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG. Created by User:Alwayssmileguys, an indefinitely blocked paid editor. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Greg Hannley

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Greg Hannley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mkdw ^talk 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having more than 1 account in wiki is not against wiki policies and i havent used the accounts against wiki policies . All the admins who are against me are now teamed up to crucify me ! Great go ahead ! I will be back !!! Always :) (talk)

Now why would they go and do an arbitrary thing like that, anyway? Hm. Smiling is wonderful. Multiple accounts is... Why would you need multiple accounts unless you have some underhanded purpose in having them? Because there is virtually no need for a second account when you already have one account, unless there is something I am missing?? KDS4444^Talk 05:33, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Mkdw ^talk 06:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban

Per this discussion, the Wikipedia community has banned you from editing the English Wikipedia.

What this means (and how it is different to your previous indefinite block) includes that further edits from your sockpuppets may be reverted, regardless of their merit, by any editor; and you may not be unblocked without a specific community consensus to do so (ie unblocking of this account is no longer a matter even for a checkuser but something that requires wider community input).

The process for appealing this ban is listed here and is essentially an email appeal to Arbcom or an administrator who may then place the appeal before the community for discussion. There is no minimum period before an appeal can be lodged, but it is very likely that any appeal in the next twelve months will be summarily declined.

Note that even should a community ban be overturned there remains the issue of the checkuser block, which would require lifting via a separate discussion and approvals process (see this section for the relevant policy).

Essentially the Wikipedia community has lost patience with your editing and has asked you to find another way to spend your time. Please don't take that personally. But please do have regard for it, and stop attempting to edit at this website. -- Euryalus (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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/Alwayssmileguys, 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.

SmartSE (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Emilio Tomasini

The article Emilio Tomasini has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Backendgaming (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of RingMeMaybe

The article RingMeMaybe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A few press mentions over a short period of time do not satisfy in-depth requirements of general notability guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of RingMeMaybe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RingMeMaybe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RingMeMaybe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ∯WBG^converse 07:09, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]