User talk:Simonsmith

Copyvio?

If Jeremiah Crawford is a straight copy of the newspaper article then you must either a) tag it {{db|author admits copyvio}} or b) re-write in your own words. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators discussion

You are being discussed at WP:ANI#Possible_duplicate_user_account. Feel free to comment there. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, see the discussion I started at User:SIMONSMITH about using more than one account. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union Grove Baptist Church

A tag has been placed on Union Grove Baptist Church, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of Union Grove Baptist Church and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Jehochman ^Talk 00:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jeremiah Crawford

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Jeremiah Crawford, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jehochman ^Talk 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate user?

Hi there! Looks like you might be the same person as User:SIMONSMITH. Wikipedia usually discourages having multiple accounts for editing, unless there is a special need to do so. I'd suggest you choose one account you'd like to use, and redirect the other user pages to that account. I'll be glad to help you do that if you aren't sure how. Drop me a line at my talk page if you need help doing that.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to harm Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 13:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"disruptive editing"? On what basis? Have you proven the information submitted to be untrue?

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. ElKevbo (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simonsmith: are you aware that you are edit-warring and have broken the three revert rule? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simonsmith, see the complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Simonsmith reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: ). EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello: edit-warring? I have asked ElKevbo to acknowledge if the information provided is non-factual? The responsibility is upon him and not me. Since this has been referred to Wikipedia: Administrators, I must warn you that this appears to be censorship.

Edit warring at Claremont Graduate University

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptive editing. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard (permalink). EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently set up an account with Wikepedia. Prior to that, I recalled a section by Simonsmith which simply stated, "In 2012, a formal student complaint was reviewed by the CGU Vice Provost, Jacob Adams. The complaint was submitted to the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), Barbara Gross-Davis, PhD. The complaint was unresolved, questioning the quality/value of the teacher preparation program."

How is that statement an indication of wikipedia warring when it can be factual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Friendly8967 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How did you learn that such a complaint was made? Do you have a published source? Do you think that a merely giving us the names of some officials proves that anyone submitted anything to them? You can't add statements to articles based only on personal knowledge. Even if you could prove this, does one complaint from one person deserve coverage in our main article about a university? Do you assume that this is the first university to ever receive a complaint? EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading in Wikipedia on CGU under Educational Studies that there was a formal student complaint in 2012 concerning CGU teacher preparation program. Scrolling through this discussion, I an wondering why such information is not being submitted and infact one of your users have been blocked and several users submitted the same information?