User talk:Overgryph

Speedy deletion nomination of Photobacterium precipi

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Photobacterium precipi, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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. KDS4444 (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overgryph, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Overgryph! 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 Samwalton9 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Please do not create, maintain or restore hoaxes on Wikipedia. Hoaxes are eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G3. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia — and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Define "blatant hoax" and prove that my submission is such. I have better things to do with my time than watch idiots behind a computer screen WHO CAN'T PROVE THIS ARTICLE IS A HOAX remove information I upload to wikipedia. Overgryph

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:CactusWriter with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Overgryph, especially if it involves living persons. You might be annoyed about a page being deleted but that is not an excuse to insult and abuse the people who deleted it. Nthep (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}. 5 albert square (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have every right to rage at the admin who called my research a BLATANT HOAX, especially after I've uploaded images of today's sample (which will be under a microscope at University of West Florida TOMORROW for your information!). I understand Wikipedia is not the place for this information until it has been published by a credible scientific community, which is now going to be the case. If unblocked, I'll post a better wiki page of this organism AFTER a credible scientific community has published its findings. Wanna see it? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photobacterium_precipi_SS3.jpg and also https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photobacterium_precipi_SS2_under_skotchtape.jpg Overgryph (talk) 05:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have every right to rage -- you do, but you don't get to abuse other Wikipedia volunteers in the process. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 06:12, 20 January 2017 (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.

There isn't a single Google hit on "Photobacterium precipi", the article you created was clearly nonsense and sourced only to your own Facebook account in which you claim you have personally named it, and those so-called photos don't even deserve the time taken to look at them. I have revoked your talk page access to prevent any further waste of time. Please see WP:UTRS if you should ever wish to make an honest appeal. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]