User talk:Smartestmanonearth

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to 9/11 conspiracy theories appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. clpo13_(talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Heisman Trophy winners. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —Chris!_c/t 03:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read-- I am not sure how to do this talk stuff, it isn't like normal email.

there should not be a listing of Reggie Bush on the Heisman winner's page. He is not listed on the list of Heisman winners page from the official Heisman trophy list of winners site.

Thanks for your comments. Go to "discuss this page" and feel free to add your comments. Sign the talk page by using 4 tildes. Also see my message below about WP protocol. Thanks and happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heisman Trophy

Smartestmanonearth, welcome to Wikipedia. Before editing again, please read WP:V, WP:CONSENUS, and WP:NPOV. Also feel free to play around in the sandbox, which will help you learn about all the functions of WP. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus. Man, you guys on this website are idiots. Where is the formal vote then for a consensus to happen? Smartestmanonearth (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF before using a talk page, as well. As a professor, I'm quite aware of the limits of my own intellect; admins may not be as comfortable with you questioning theirs. So just use some discretion before calling people idiots in the future, otherwise your time here will be short. Just trying to help. Obamafan70 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smartestmanonearth (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Those rules or whatever the hell they are are a joke. Just like this fucking website. The fact that people can't understand facts is beyond me. That isn't my opinion, that is a fact.Smartestmanonearth (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your stream of consciousness writing makes it rather confusing to decipher what the antecedent of "that" is. The fact that you use the word "fact" three times also doesn't help. Unfortunately, all that seems to miss my original intention, which is to help you. Regardless of your opinion of the rules and that you WP:DGAF, you need to abide by them or the admins will make short work of you. Again, just trying to help a fellow editor. Happy editing, Obamafan70 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's true though, there are a lot of idiots who use this website. There website is just about equal parts usefulness and stupidity. Not to mention the various stuff that is relevant that doesn't get written and is not allowed to be written. Heck, like the Missing Person's song lyrics, what are words for, when no one listens anywaysSmartestmanonearth (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb

Long ago it was determined that IMDb is not a reliable source under Wikpedia's terms.

Please do not edit to mirror or retain information drawn from the IMDb. This includes cast order. Doing so will be considered disruptive editing. Depending on the circumstances it can also be viewed as edit warring and can eventually lead to your ability to edit Wikipedia to temporarily be suspended.

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure how to use this talk, if IMDB isn't accurate, why do they link to it for just about every single movie? Also, besides IMDB watch the end credits and see who is top billing. How about if you make another edit that is disruptive? Also, who the hell are you to come in a decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Do you know how top billing in movies is even decided? --

IMDb is used as an "External link" on many articles, yes. The criteria for an external link is different from that for a source/reference for material inside the article.
If you feel the credits should be based on the end credits of the particular version of the film you have access to, discuss it on the articles talk page. If I understand correctly, current consensus is to use the cast as listed on the common theatrical posters though.
"How about if" games need not apply. Thank you.
Part of the community of editors here. One that has an understanding of current consensus about what is and isn't acceptable practices. If you feel that the consensus is wrong or has changed you are free to pursue those discussions in the proper places. Generally IMDb and cast credits fall under WP:FILM and/or WP:TV.
Looking up your talk page shows that you have been pointed towards Wikipedi's civility policy. Please take the time to either read it or reread it until you are familiar with it. How you are phrasing things - "who the hell are you to come in a decide" - can be seen as skirting it.
Contractually I believe, but that is irrelevant in this case.

- J Greb (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smartestmanonearth (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)I am not really sure if you or any of your editors do have an understanding of current consensus. You guys just want to act like fascists. Do it this way, regardless of it is right or wrong. Here is a question, what standard is used for putting the actors in which order for the starring page? It actually isn't irrelevant in the case. Are actors being put by billing order or by whatever anyone thinks? Is it beginning billing order or end credit billing order? Civility? How come under President Barack Obama, there are no mentions of Bill Ayers and one of Jeremiah Wright? Where are your wikipedia standards there?Smartestmanonearth (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW you can chose to continue to double post here and on my talk page, but I'll respond here.

"You guys just want to act like fascists." You can stop this now. If you cannot or will not work nicely with others and within the policies and guidelines in play here you are free to go elsewhere.
WP:CASTLIST and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 35#Cast lists.

As for the rest - If you are going to ramble, ramble else where, please. If you really feel how the cast is handled needs to be revisited, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. If you are unwilling or unable to start that discussion - accept how it is currently done and move on.

- J Greb (talk) 23:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smartestmanonearth (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)I call them how I see them. If you are too thinned skinned or anyone else that is associated with this website, that is your problem. You can do you best to show me where I'm wrong, but I'll call a spade a spade. Working nicely with others has a wide meaning, but since there is a site that any idiot can change the information too, what really is the point? Even a consensus can be wrong or dangerous, or are you forgetting the election of George Bush, Barack Obama or even Adolf Hitler? I'm not rambling but merely stating an inconsistency in wikipolicy. We can mention the bad in only a few but not in all? How is that for being civil or consistent or even within the guise of consensus. Why dismiss the question about wikipedia standards in other places? Again, what's the point of a discussion since one can't get a majority of people to form a consensus, especially if it is for a change? I'll look up the various 'guidelines' but here is a good thought process, the term 'star' as used for film, etc. means "An artistic performer or athlete whose leading role or superior performance is acknowledged." I am asking you, should the little place in wiki that mentions 'Starring' regarding movies be inaccurate? The broader picture is that many people think wikipedia is a joke, which I do not. I fully think it should be able to be accepted in most forms of research, but the consensus shows otherwise. If we always agreed to accept how it is done or moved on, we'd never have reached the moon. The great thing about wikipedia is the fact that anyone can edit it, which also happens to be its Achilles heel.[reply]

Breach of 1RR sanctions

The Wikipedia community has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor who is active on the Bundy standoff article. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks or a page ban. All editors are also subject to WP:1RR at the article (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). The discussion leading to the imposition of these sanctions can be read here. These sanctions and the 1RR restriction will end on June 22, 2014.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions.

Cwobeel (talk) 01:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Violation of 1RR sactions, as you did at Bundy standoff. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 03:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]