User talk:Smk42

Hello, Smk42! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes ( ~~~~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

re: Cleve. Browns starting QBs.

Please post specifics about your recent fixes, game by game if possible. I created this page, using the PD database and other sources, and want to doublecheck your work against my original work papers. Thanks!

~hanksummers

Peyton Manning

are you like inlove with that guy you edit him after every game with every little detail thats why the make a page called the colts 08-09 season theirs one for 07-08--DCsniper207 (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article List of emo artists, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Andy Greenwald? Because it'd make a lot of sense if you were. I know how to use this site. I have used this site for some time now, making numerous edits to different topics. I also know that once in a while you come across someone that's a real stickler (or I like the term WikiNazi) over a certain article's content. And it appears you are that someone when it comes to emo articles. I'm just a huge fan of getting things right and not misleading people to myths and false information. That's a noble thing if you ask me. Now when you let crap fill up an article, there's no hope of that happening, now is there? I'm just trying to flush away some of the crap here. Smk42 (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to List of emo artists. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to List of emo artists. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler, you have no knowledge of anything related to the topic. Why would I add a source to a type of list that does not need one, just like plenty of other lists on here? Something either belongs or doesn't, and anything I added there you can easily see belongs just by clicking on that entry. So it'd be great if you could stop being a Nazi, stop being stupid and stop being lazy and just click on the damn name. Smk42 (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to List of emo artists, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IllaZilla (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler, the only thing disruptive is your insulting lack of intelligence. How can you continue to just revert my edits without even responding to my posts on the talk page that I've clearly made hours ago that explain said edits? How can you continue to use this retarded "well one person in the world said it so I must throw it on here as s good source!" It spits in the face of logic and fact. Smk42 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, you also removed a reference I added (for your sake, as you must be the only person in the world that needs it there) for the band Envy. Maybe I should report that. Smk42 (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 24 hours, for repeated personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Navio Forge

A tag has been placed on Navio Forge 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 band or musician, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jimmy Pitt talk 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deleting List of real emo bands

Re: your message: My deletion of the article was perfectly valid. There is no reason to have a list of "real" emo bands and a list of ("not real"?) emo bands. If there are bands that are listed in the "real" list, then they should be a subset of List of emo bands. If you have issues regarding which bands are or are not included in List of emo bands, work it out on the talk page. If you are at an impasse with one single editor regarding the issue, then follow the dispute resolution procedures. Finally, your personal attacks on Talk:List of real emo bands are not at all appropriate. You have been blocked once before for personal attacks. If you have a dispute with an editor, please remain civil and work out the issue without resorting to insults. Continued personal attacks will result in you being blocked again. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: Seeing how it appears that you have never even attempted to use the dispute resolution procedures, I don't see how you think that won't help. At minimum, I suggest that you get a third opinion as that is very easy to ask for. If you have a reference that calls a band emo, then include it. If you dispute an existing reference, then tag it. If you and the other editor get into another edit war, then report it. Forking off a "real" list is not the proper methodology for dispute resolution. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re your message: I have restored the article to your user space at User:Smk42/List of real emo bands. However, my moving it to your user space is only for your request for a copy. It does not mean I endorse any fork of List of emo bands or imply that you can move the article back into main space. I have not restored the article's talk page because of the aforementioned personal attacks by you. I really do suggest that you follow the dispute resolution process. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of emo artists. 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. IllaZilla (talk) 08:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on List of emo artists. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger

I'm gonna have to ask you to consider contributing information to these articles in a different way than you currently are. The style in which you add information has been questioned a number of times. It really is not appropriate per Wikipedia style guidelines, prose is much more appropriate than a list. Additionally, information from every single game is not necessary per WP:SS - that goes on the team's season article, ie 2010 Pittsburgh Steelers season. It is not appropriate to contribute to those articles in a style that does not match what has already been established on those pages. I'm giving you that chance to rewrite it yourself before I ask somebody else to or do it myself. Grsz¹¹ 05:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most consecutive starts (NFL)

Thanks for contributing to the quarterback starts page. If you would be interested, we're looking to expand the general most consecutive starts page. We have quarterback (Favre), defensive end (Marshall) and cornerback (Barber), but could use several of the other positions if they can become known. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

30 Seconds to Mars

It would be great if you leave a comment here.--Trandingbrights (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Dan Marino. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So instead of adding some citations or "citation needed", you just delete all the fact-based material people took the time to produce? Sorry, things don't work that way. Everything you've deleted belongs there, and not every little thing needs to be cited. There's not a single bit of controversial material posted in any of the numerous articles you've been snipping away at for no good reason. Smk42 (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not incumbent upon other editors to add citations (or even tag individual edits with {{cn}}). Wikipedia is about verifiability, not "facts", "truth", or even your assertion that the edit(s) contain "not a single bit of controversial material". Indeed, the fact that your edits have been removed (by two editors now) indicates that they are controversial. That's not to say that a single one of the accomplishments is inaccurate, mind you - they may be completely correct. They are just uncited at the moment. Frank | talk 03:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can someone add citations when you just go and delete everything? Put something on the talk page first or tag it. You don't just delete 4000 characters of unharmful material that is all verifiable.

"In practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material"

"Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for it exist."

Likewise we know sources exist for all these records. Smk42 (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add back information with a citation; it is customary to add both information and citations to support it at the same time. (Note that I am making no comment as to the suitability of having all those records in the article; opinions may differ on this point even if citations are added. Consensus developed on the talk page is probably the best step to take.)

As for Paris, it is far more widely known as the capital of France than Marino is (for any reason) and that is a rather unchanging piece of information. On the other hand, individual records that Marino holds or has held are both far more esoteric and far more subject to change.

Finally - you've quoted anything challenged or likely to be challenged - and your edits have clearly been challenged. Frank | talk 03:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make the original article. If I did, I would not have added a citation to every single line you deleted because that would be a waste of time. I don't know what you're challenging here. This info has been on here for several years with no one trying to delete it all. It should be common knowledge among football fans that Marino broke all the passing records, then Favre broke them, and Manning will be next. I don't know any player on Wikipedia that has every line of his records section cited. If something real obscure pops up (this would relate to the idea of "challenged"), then I can see adding a source. But a source to tell me Marino won the MVP award in 1984 or started 240 games? Talk about getting redundant. Who wants to read an article where every line ends with a bracketed number? I've made a ton of these kind of edits on Wikipedia. Sometimes I add a source, sometimes I don't. And I've heard people on TV (Joe Buck on FOX, NFL Films on NFL Network) read some of this stuff word from word that I typed on here. And again, some of it was sourced, some of it wasn't. What it all has in common is it's 100% accurate.Smk42 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me where in WP:V, WP:CITE, and/or WP:RS (or any applicable Wikipedia policy, really) it states that being "accurate" or "common knowledge" or "on here for several years with no one trying to delete it" or "Joe Buck read it on TV" is sufficient for content to remain. It seems we have had this discussion before; I don't think policies have changed in the meantime. Frank | talk 11:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what someone would be dumb enough to try challenging here. And right, I guess you have a history of trying to destroy articles so they make no sense. By deleting all the records like before, you leave an article that mentions in the lead how he retired "holding or having held almost every major NFL passing record", yet scroll down and you get a list with maybe 5 records. A person's going to read that and think "what a crock". And how is any of the following a "peacock" term?

"This list documents the numerous NFL records set by Dan Marino throughout his seventeen season career, which ended with his retirement following the 1999 season. Some of the records have since been broken"

What? The word "numerous", which appears in the Career highlights above? The fact that he played 17 seasons and retired after 1999? What gives? You're taking away some of the clarity there. Just leave it alone if you're not going to do anything to ever improve it. Smk42 (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Navio Forge for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Navio Forge 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/Navio Forge (2nd nomination) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Warner undo

I guess you haven't been paying attention tho the NFL this year, but two Quarterbacks have (unfortunately) surpassed Kurt Warners previous record for the most passing yards in the first 2 games of a season. So can you please explain to me exactly why you undid my revision?

Kurt Warner undo

I guess you haven't been paying attention tho the NFL this year, but two Quarterbacks have (unfortunately) surpassed Kurt Warners previous record for the most passing yards in the first 2 games of a season. So can you please explain to me exactly why you undid my revision?Vejet (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a record's broken, you don't just delete it like it never happened. Simply note it was surpassed by who and when.Smk42 (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]