Talk:Broken Anatomy

[Untitled]
I'm not deleting the "marked for deletion tag" myself because I don't want to step on any toes. The assumption that I'm the Samantha Michelle Smith in question is certainly correct, though this page was not created for promotional purposes. (if i was going to that I'd be going on about how I'm the most awesome person ever or some such stupid stuff in that vein). I simply put it up because I realized no one else was going to, and have cited reputable sources such as The Metal Archives (which has more stringent standards than Wikipedia in my experience), as well as multiple reviews and suchwhat. If that's deemed not enough, I don't exactly have any way of arguing with y'all over it. Smsdeathmetal92 (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. But the Metal Archives listing for the band was written by you! So the site's overall reputation can't be about having independently written listings. Nevertheless, the two Verbicide refs look good, meeting WP:RS in my opinion, so I've removed the PROD nomination on the basis of those and tagged the page to show at least the possibility that others might want to verify the article's status vis-a-vis WP:BAND. I did need to post the conflict-of-interest tag as well. Thanks for your calm and considered response to the situation! —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * heh, the original data was submitted by me. it had to be fact checked and verified all the same, and it's been modified by many others in the interest of keeping all the information bias free ;) COI tags are understandable, at the moment I'm the primary contributor and I *do* have a conflict of interest in being so.

Re: calm and considered, do people really get all ragey when stuff like that happens? I run various internet communities, and I get that every place has it's rules, and those rules are to be respected. God knows I've used Wikipedia enough in research that I sure as hell should abide by the rules when submitting :) Smsdeathmetal92 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hard to imagine if you haven't seen it. Some people show an alarming sense of entitlement. Certainly not everyone understands up front that Wikipedia isn't a free-for-all. After all, it is billed as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," which could be interpreted as "you can write what you want". The slogan is a bit misleading in that respect. But there are an awful lot of people who consider it a personal affront that there are policies and guidelines even after they've been thoughtfully explained, and won't take No for an answer. Some keep reposting clearly inappropriate material after multiple deletions and progressively less gentle warnings, eventually getting themselves blocked&#8212;and then they appeal the block in a state of gross indignation that doesn't endear them to the administrator who happens by to consider the appeal. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's just baffling beyond belief. Smsdeathmetal92 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Broken Anatomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120526135324/http://www.doommantia.com/2012/03/broken-anatomy-shadow-deemed-worthy.html to http://www.doommantia.com/2012/03/broken-anatomy-shadow-deemed-worthy.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)