Smartie2thaMaxXx

/Archive 1

Edit Warring

I see that recently you were engaged in an edit war at Dan Green (voice actor), that is to say that you were repeatedly reverting changes back to your preferred version. Edit warring is considered disruptive, and users are expected to collaborate with others, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to any particular number of reverts.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Calling someone "my worst enemy" as you did here is wholly inappropriate in a collaborative environment. This is not a place for battlegrounds (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

My Edits

Hi Smartie2thaMaxXx, I just want to ask you kindly can you please stop undoing my edit on every article I go to. I also want to know, why do you hate me so much? I showed you a source on the Dan Green (voice actor) article in the edit history list. I didn't mean any harm, I was just providing a source. But why do you hate me so much? Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 15:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm letting you know for the last time! Stop edit warring against me it's not right at all! Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Smartie, you are VERY close to wiki-hounding this user. I suggest you take a break from each other. If other editors have issues with Bigshow's changes, let them take it up with him. --McDoobAU93 17:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 59 days for edit warring on several articles, most recently Jason Griffith (voice actor). The length of the block takes into account both your previous history of blocks for edit warring and also the fact that much of your recent edit warring has been connected to harassing and personally attacking another editor. If you continue in this way it may be not long before you are indefinitely blocked. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  JamesBWatson (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

So, first you blocked BSAK64, then me. Well played. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, he didn't block me at all. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

My bad. Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I would like you to take a look at WP:NPA on how to avoid personal attacks, as well as our harassment policy. In order to prevent edit warring (which is forbidden), you must discuss changes on the talk page. Unfortunately, if you edit war after you've been unblocked, you may end up being blocked once again and in the words of Beeblebrox, anyone engaged in an edit war is automatically wrong. In the meantime, I would like to echo McDoob's sentiments that you may take a break from Bigshow and if others have issues with his changes, please let them take it up with him. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The length of your block has been increased, as you have been evading the block by editing without logging in. Moreover, I see that you have done the same before, during previous blocks. If you continue to edit disruptively, then you may well be blocked indefinitely.

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Smartie2thaMaxXx; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Star Wars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Kathleen Kennedy and Roger Barton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the dyslexic edit

My apologies for getting things backwards. You quite properly removed that "4th favorite" item and when I clicked on "diff" I saw things the wrong way round. Thanks for your vigilance and again my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 21:12, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit Warring Again

You are clearly engaged in yet another edit war at Talk:List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases, that is to say that you are repeatedly reverting changes back to your preferred version. Edit warring is considered disruptive, and users are expected to collaborate with others, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. You are also breaking The Three-Revert Rule.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to any particular number of reverts.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.

You have been warned for this behaviour on numerous occasions, and blocked when you did not heed those warnings. If you continue to edit war and break 3RR you may be blocked from editing, this time with more serious sanctions than those imposed previously. 86.178.45.253 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

At Talk:List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases you're deleting another editor's comments. It isn't an article; its a Talk Page! What's the matter with you? Have you ever read the guidelines about editing other's Talk Page comments? Apparently not. You need to stop, dude. Now. 109.153.138.255 (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

And again - Disruptive editing and 3RR

Your recent editing history at The Reluctant Dragon (film) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

While you are considering these matters, you may also wish to consider your consistent ignoring of good practice regarding the provision of edit summaries, whereby you habitually fail to give any explanation or rationale for the many edits you make, seemingly every day, usually only using them to chide others who disagree with your point of view. 86.178.45.253 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent edit warring and other disruptive editing. After numerous temporary blocks for edit warring, and further messages about doing so, you continue to edit war on various pages. It is perfectly clear that you have no intention of stopping doing so, and that you either don't understand or else choose to ignore "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". 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.  JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

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).

Smartie2thaMaxXx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please Mr Watson, I'm on my last vestige. I know I've gotten into edit wars before. I can't really go on being blocked. Wikipedia is my life. Blocking me indefinitely for edit warring on one article is really pushing it. I don't mean to be mean or anything. I shouldn't. I will have to apologize for my actions. I don't know how much I can take.

Decline reason:

Whatever makes you think you're blocked indefinitely for edit warring on one article? You're blocked for a pattern of edit warring without the least indication you're going to stop doing it. Edit warring itself disrupts Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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).

Smartie2thaMaxXx (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Still indefinitely? I know it's been rough on me. But I don't want the words "The 1988 Disney/Amblin movie" on at all.

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request, but a perfect example of why you should not be unblocked nonetheless (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

• I've just looked over your history here, and you have had *five* blocks for edit warring since December 2012, plus another earlier block for BLP violations, and numerous warnings on this talk page for various problems - and you still do not appear to fully understand what you are doing wrong. I suggest you really need to spend a bit of time thinking about this and come to some proper understanding now. If you make another unblock request and do not demonstrate that, and are not able to convince a reviewing admin that you really will substantially improve your approach, then I think you have a strong chance of having your ability to edit this talk page revoked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:HumongousLogo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:HumongousLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 02:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)