User talk:Sergio Skol

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1964 Little All-America college football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otis Taylor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry 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/Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Let'srun (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Minnesota–Penn State football rivalry. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2024 Simpson Red Hawks football team

The article 2024 Simpson Red Hawks football team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Sourcing does not meet the criteria set by WP:NTEAM; coverage is limited to primary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff records

Hi Sergio, hope all is well. Going to sleep now, but just wanted to run this by you. I saw that the playoff/postseason records, along with the Super Bowl, are no longer kept in the infobox. Honestly, nobody reverted what you did, so I've been editing ones that I see also. You might want to tackle Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce. Only because I see that they have references for everything. I can delete things with the best of them... but I can make a big mess also, lol. It's not fair to keep some records for some and not others. If you already thought about this earlier, please share it with me. I'll be here Sunday night. Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 07:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Everything's great, I also hope you're having a nice time

Answering your question, yeah, it's unfair keep playoff/SB records just for some.

Not all needs to be displayed on the infoboxes, we could add a ==NFL records== section, where we could include all of them. Because adding every single record would mean write something like: "first player to receive 1,400+ yards and 17+ touchdowns with fewest receptions in NFL history", and I think nobody will ever care about a record like it.

Mahomes and Kelce now are two of the most popular players in the history, so many editors want to add every single thing about them, including admins. They forget we should keep neutral when editing, and that's why their pages include many irrelevant things.

I've always thought that playoff records are unfair enough to be on the infoboxes. Why? Because this is a sport team, e.g. Dick Butkus was a incredible MLB, but he never played in the postseason. He wasn't the guilty for the Bears bad football team. So we shouldn't add that type of records on boxes. (P.S. Please tag me when you reply) Sergio Skol (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sergio Skol. Good to hear that and I am, thanks. Not sure if you meant to ping you when responding. Your page should automatically turn your bell red upon messaging, I think. I don't know too much anyway. I hear all that you're saying, and I was going to ask you earlier if you got a consensus on this. I also figured that if someone saw what you did .. and didn't agree, like the Jerry Rice page, it would have been removed from the template by now. All my edits were reverted, I'm going to stop for the time being. Too hot to ruffle feathers at the moment, lol. We'll see where this takes us. It kind of reminds me of the 'official' sack deal with no consensus, but another editor, over the months, added about 100 pre-1982 sacks to pages. It's too late to change it now. I'm kind of giving up on pages being consistent. Well, enjoy your summer! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Sergio. Saying this as a friend, it's good to get a consensus with the current subject. I've seen it in the past. I'm all for deleting things, but a consensus clears the air at times .. myself, I always hated having to ask permission to take a piss, you know what I mean? But with a template and all the editors out there, it's definitely the right thing to do. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergio Skol: For what it's worth, I feel very mixed on the subject, but I was also going to revert your change to WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT when I saw it, before realizing someone else already had. While I don't feel strongly either way, I am generally in favour of less infobox clutter. Never the less, I do believe it should be discussed at WT:NFL before it to the player page format, with a mention of the discussion left at Template:Infobox NFL biography. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of 2024 William Woods Owls football team

The article 2024 William Woods Owls football team has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Subject does not meet the WP:NSEASONS or WP:GNG. All coverage is primary.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Let'srun (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big 12

Hi Sergio, I noticed your edits in several articles of Pac-12 football teams that are moving to the Big 12, including the one for Colorado. I don't think we should say that these teams are in the Big 12 yet, no official announcement on them has been made, either from the Big 12 or the individual teams. The Big 12 website doesn't show the logos of the four future teams from the Pac-12 and all four of those teams still have the Pac-12 logo on their websites as of now. These teams aren't joining the Big 12 until August 2 so I think it's best to still say that these teams are in the Pac-12. Colohisto (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your edit to Ray Guy Award has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Diannaa, I actually don't give a fuck, do whatever you want, it doesn't matter, you all always do it. So you don't need to write me about something that you already deleted and I already know, you seems like a stupid guy/girl/helicopter, or whatever you want to be.

The funniest thing is the text you deleted is written above in the article haha.

So fuck you, block me from editing, and ban my IP 🖕🏽. Have a great day =) Sergio Skol (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:54, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to note that indefinite does not mean infinite here. The goal here isn't to drive you off the site, it's to stop you from making copyright violations and personal attacks. If you're ready to change your attitude I am happy to consider/support an unblock. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elli, as I wrote, I actually don't give a shit if I'm blocked. In fact, if you can ban my IP, I'd be glad.

I want to drive myself off of this horrendous community; so you can block me indefinitely, but I can still making edits if I logged out, that's why I want my IP to be banned. Have a nice day =). Sergio Skol (talk) 13:10, 4 August 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

OK @Elli, I've learned the lesson. Now I get that I don't have to attack others people just because they don't think like me. It's incorrect to do it, and I am not going to behave like that once again. I apologize for my attitude @Diannaa, you can be pretty sure that it is not going to happen again ever. Sergio Skol (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Since you've changed your mind about wanting to be here and have apologized for your attacks, you will also need to speak to what led to your attacks- copyright violations. 331dot (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2024 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

As you can watch here, I edited the page with The Augusta Sports Council, also home to the Ray Guy Award, created the FCS Punter of the Year Award in 2019 to honor the best collegiate punter playing in the Football Championship Subdivision (FCS). Among the statistics used to identify the winner is net punting average, number of times punt is downed or kicked out of bounds inside the opponents 20-yard line, total yardage punted, average returned yardage and percentage of punts not returned with particular emphasis placed on net punting average. The winner must display team leadership, self-discipline and have a positive impact on the team's success. Something that is still written in the Ray Guy Award's page. So, when I watched it (they deleted something that was [and still] written on the article), I felt an unfair treatment. It'd be a lie if I told you I didn't know the copyright rules, I just thought: "If it is in the article, so there won't be any problems". In fact, the only reason why I violated copyright rule was because I watched the same words on the page, and I thought it was okay to use it again just below. The reason why I attacked other Wikipedian was because I felt an unfair treatment, thinking why they deleted my part but not the other one. That's the sincerely explanation.

Anyway, if you guys think it's better not to unblock me, I'll accept your decision. THX.

Decline reason:

You seem to think the copyright policy is arbitrary. Also, you seem to think it's okay to create a new account while you're blocked. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2024 (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.

I have checked more than once and the description of the Punter of the Year Award is no longer present in the article. I removed it with this edit. You seem to be under the impression that the description of the Punter of the Year Award was present in two locations in the article, but that does not appear to be the case. However, there is some content in the lead that matches https://www.rayguyaward.com/about, which is a different webpage from where I found the content about the Punter of the Year Award, so I am going to remove it now. (The organization actually issues two awards: the Ray Guy Award and the Punter of the Year Award. Part of the descriptions of the two awards are the same; hence the overlap.) Sorry for the mistake.

All that being said, we could have resolved this amicably at the beginning of August but I tend not to want to interact with people who call a stupid guy/girl/helicopter, laugh at me when I make a mistake, and tell me to fuck off. So fuck off I did. — Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't worry @Diannaa, I won't do it. It's easier for me just ignore your arbitrary rules. As you are saying, you made a mistake, I did it too. The difference between us is that you are an administrator, I am not. I'm just creating a new account, or stop editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Skol (talk • contribs) 19:09, August 28, 2024 (UTC)

Do you think actually think our copyright policy, an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications, is arbitrary? Creating a new account to evade your block is also against one of our rules. — Diannaa (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Sergio Skol still has a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to editing. I do not support an unblock at this time. Try again in 6 months. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)~~ Actually if he wants to come back, I don't really care. Just try to be nice. I don't think the copyright thing was intentional. I think it was just a one-off. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was initially inclined to support an unblock, provided they showed that they understood copyright policy... but this ain't it. Disappointing, but this isn't an acceptable attitude towards the project. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last answer to all you guys @Diannaa, @Elli and @WikiOriginal-9

I apologize if I didn't explain myself correctly. I didn't mean the copyright rule was arbitrary, it is a rule, as simple as it.

What I wanted to say was, I think it's pretty arbitrary that the admins has "more tolerance" when they commit mistakes. Also, I am not saying my ban wasn't fair, I had a bad attitude and I deserved to be banned. I got my attitude, I apologized with Diannaa for it, I explained why I behaved like it, and you all thought I didn't deserve to be unblocked; I get it and have no problem with it.

Finally, I just want to keep editing Wikipedia, I love helping this website, and I don't have to relate with other Wikipedians, because I still thinking this community is horrible, but it doesn't mean that I hate the site. So I'm going to keep doing it, although I must create another account. I feel like it is not against the law, because I am not going to break the rules again, or at least I'll try my best. As Elli wrote, the project is the most important thing, not the people around it.

I wish to you all have nice lives =). Sergio Skol (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you're just going to create another account is not a good idea. I understand your enthusiam, but I suggest you strike that part. Otherwise, I'll support your unblock. You make good edits here. Just try to be nicer to people in the future. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THX =), I'm glad at least one person noticed my edits and thinks I did a good job. And also that you for want to support my unblock, but I have made up my mind and I am not going to edit Wikipedia ever again. I think I can use my time so much better than only editing one page and then somebody will undo it because they think they're always right just 'cause are admins.

So I'm done with it.

Goodbye ~WikiOriginal-9~, have a great life =). Sergio Skol (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not banned; you're only blocked, and that block is because you acted in an uncivil manner (which you have now apologized for) and you haven't demonstrated that you understand our copyright policy. If you demonstrate that, you'll be unblocked. On the other hand, making another account while blocked is very much against policy, and will get you banned; it's much harder to return after doing that. So please, do not make another account. It's not impossible for you to get unblocked here. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just ban me, I don't care what happens to this account. It's just an account in Wikipedia, not my life, so do whatever you think is better or whatever you want, because I am not going to edit Wikipedia ever again. Sergio Skol (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]