User talk:JMichael22

Re: Foxwoods Commercial

Please—enough on this already. I've said my piece at the discussion, as have plenty of other editors. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017 - incorrectly reintroducing badly-cited factoids on Edge (wrestler)

Earlier today you incorrectly reverted an edit I made removing a badly-cited factoid from Edge (wrestler). As I stated in my edit summary, I am sure that the wrestler has not used his real name as an in-ring identity and in any case, the accompanying citation is an un-archived deadlink to what appears to be a fansite. Please familiarise yourself with WP:PROVEIT ("All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution") and do not blindly revert experienced editors (or even unexperienced ones). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, hope you're having a relaxing time during this period and that next year will be even better for us all here.★Trekker (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Championships and accomplishments

I noticed in your edits to these, you're capitalizing things in parentheses, which they shouldn't be. In the future, make sure you keep things like "(one time)" in lowercase. Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Please undo close

I can see it was opposed but Talk:Vikings (TV series) RM should not really have closed by a non-admin (I wouldn't have closed it). You've got three experienced editors arguing to following the project guidelines and a group of opposes from IPs and others who don't seem to understanding naming policies. I suggest you undo the close and let it be relisted. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Sports in Puerto Rico

Good, add and cite the proper sources. Another thing, when adding names to the "List of Puerto Ricans" please follow the instructions of inclusion and cite and add a source which proves the subjects Puerto Rican heritage. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Good job! Tony the Marine (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

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).

JMichael22 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

User:Vanjagenije LovelyAngle is account ran an controlled by my wife, I am not in anyway participating in "sock puppetry" at all Lovely Angle was an Account that Was created years ago under Michael Cage and she became interested in Wikipedia After her and i disscussed about how addicted to it was so she became interested and i gave her the account and informed how to properly go about requesting a name change for the account i also informed her to go about her own edits iv told her to stay away from my topics and suggested she go start off by Editing request moves that way she start off easy by learning to do research then voicing her opinion, Only edit we agreed upon was the request move for Edge we both felt Strongly about it other then that we both make our own edits i have been a wikipedian for many Years and never had any problems like this ever i have been growing against her editing from seeing her piggy backing off joining consensus discussions iv been apart of but I in no way have any control personally over the account i just love editing and go about my own edits. If you need to block her account by all means keep it blocked but I don't deserve to be blocked iv done absolutely nothing wrong at all. JMichael22 (talk) 6:47 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but a simple glance of the writing styles of the two accounts indicates that they are both written by the same person. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:09, 15 January 2018 (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.

So, basically, you admit WP:MEATPUPPETRY. Meatpuppetry is treated the same way as sockpupptry. Why would we unblock you if you admit you've been indeed abusive for years? Vanjagenije (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And, your claim that "Only edit we agreed upon was the request move for Edge" is not true. I identified three such cases ([1] and [2], [3] and [4], [5] and [6]). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije i haven't been abusive for years and have not be directing her to edit anything. Where did I say I have been abusive for years? I have made many great contributions to Wikipedia created multiple pages and templates. I am a dedicated editor i am no puppet master. she recently took over the page in December. look through my editorial history nothing like this has ever happened in my 4 years as an editor. I have not abused anything what so ever. The accusation you've made towards me as being abusive for years id like to see proof of my abusiveness for years. I Admited to no abuse iv made alot of good and honest contributions towards wikipedia and for that I feel i should be unblocked i have no history of anything disruptive towards wikipedia only edit warring at most. Also opposing a change is not Puppetry in anyway. JMichael22 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You and your wife have been WP:meatpuppeting for more than two years. You were editing the same pages with same objective without disclosing your connection. That is the very definition of meatpuppeting. That is abusive. The fact that you are not able to understand the problem is especially worrying. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije what exactly did I do that is abusive? what was it that was being done by me that was abusive? i feel I haven't abused anything. I'm being accused of Meatpuppeting for two years? It wasn't until December 2017 that the account was taken over by her so i do not know where this two year accusation is coming from i see it was used one day in 2016 and in 2017 editing Impact Wrestling that was on my end when I remembered I had the account but completely stopped using it and she took over in December 2017 and change the name of it. but there was 0 connection to anything disruptive or meatpuppeting during those times. I was never aware that we needed to establish a connection to one another so how am I at fault for that?. Only editing we had in common was Opposing or Agreeing on Talk page discussions which I may add i didn't like that she piggy backed off of my discussions instead of doing her own. I have made great contributions to Wikipedia and never had any problem before I worked my ass off establishing and creating over 100 pages performing over 30,000 edits providing them with the proper information and because of what two weeks of My wife's edits i am losing my page and all the work that iv done over the past 4 years. This is truly heart breaking if I am no longer able to be an editor. I love this i am suffering from heart failure and all I do is enjoy editing on here. I will truly miss Wikipedia if your decision at this point is to keep me blocked but I understand meatpuppeting tho I don't feel i did anything wrong i understand two accounts can not make the same edits. It does look suspicious i agree 100%. but I mean no disruptivness to Wikipedia or its guidelines this is the first time anything like this has ever happened to me on Wikipedia and I truly regret ever allowing her to take over the account. But I guess there isn't anything else I can say at this point and I'll await your final verdict on the matter. I would just like you to take into consideration i haven't gotten in a trouble on Wikipedia before. Iv made a lot of good helpful contributions and I have now learned more about Wikipedia's policies then I ever thought I would before and I feel with the knowledge iv learned it will help me from making the same mistakes in the future. That is if you allow me to continue being an editor I'll respect the final decision regardless. JMichael22 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by taken over by her in December 2017? Does it mean that you admit you were operating both accounts bofore December 2017? Vanjagenije (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije→ the account was created by me on September 22, 2010 Under the Username Michael Cage. It wasnt used again till 2016 which there were edits on there made by myself when I remembered about the account total number of Edits by myself were 12 edits from September 2010-June 2016 then I completely stopped using it as I had my JMichael22 account which I created in May of 2014 as at that time I was new to Wikipedia and didn't know how to go about with the name change so I created a new one with the Username i wanted. Then in December 2017 my wife one day asked why am I always on Wikipedia i explained to her how I loved it and she wanted to be apart of Wikipedia i remembered I had the account and offered it to her as it was already an established account that I never use and informed her all she'd have to do was change her username to one she wanted and hopefully it would be accepted. as of today the account stands with only 31 edits from September 2010-Today. So for her 19 edits only that is getting my over 30,000 edits account blocked. This is the gods honest truth from December 2017 till today i have not had any edits to do with that page any page edited were done by her and if she caused a disruptive edit i was unaware of it. I'm telling you the truth I have not made any edit on that account since June 2016. All totaling my edits at 12 from September 2010-June 2016 how in any way is that meatpuppeting? There was nothing gained from or lost from her editing and my editing which were completely different. I get now that's not okay but unless a policy is pointed out to an editor how are they supposed to know that a connection is− supposed to be made aware. I still stand no harm has been done and I don't feel i should be blocked over 19 edits o had absolutely nothing to do with. And the messed up part about this is she doesn't even care. She just said sorry I wrote them letting them know the blame is on me and she went about her day because she doesn't give a damn like I do we all love this website that's why we became esitors. I just don't understand why over 19 edits that were in talk pages cause my account to be blocked instead of the LovelyAngle account if that's the account that was disruptive. JMichael22 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije is this a permanent block or a temporary one? That wasn't clarified JMichael22 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

See the blocking message above. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay thank you User:Vanjagenije guess iv gotta start all over with a new account JMichael22 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

That is, of course, not allowed. See WP:block evasion. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Vanjagenije A different internet provider different proxy and IP solves that problem i love to edit I didn't deserve to be blocked it was just ridiculous that I was accused of false puppetry from others i am a good contributor to Wikipedia always have been I'll be back to editing in no time. Won't be right away but it will be sooner rather than later. JMichael22 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know; we'll keep an eye out for you. Talk page access revoked. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 21:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Carson Beebe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Carson Beebe 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/Carson Beebe 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 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. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Team Dixie

Template:Team Dixie has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. StaticVapor message me! 06:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Team Dixie for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Team Dixie 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/Team Dixie 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. StaticVapor message me! 06:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:GFW Grand Championship

Template:GFW Grand Championship has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:GFW Grand Championship

A tag has been placed on Template:GFW Grand Championship requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. StaticVapor message me! 19:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of João Zeferino for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article João Zeferino 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/João Zeferino 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.

♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 19:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Off the Hook: Extreme Catches

The article Off the Hook: Extreme Catches has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

All hits on ProQuest were about the host and only mentioned the show in passing. No valid results on Newspapers.com, GBooks, or GNews.

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. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:35, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Huling

The article James Huling has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable reality television contestant; competed on, but did not win, Big Brother.

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. Bgsu98 (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Toronto Blue Jays home run leaders for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Toronto Blue Jays home run leaders 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/List of Toronto Blue Jays home run leaders 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.

Songwaters (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Titan FC Events

Template:Titan FC Events has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

"Series of" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Series of has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 9 § Series of until a consensus is reached. NotCory (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2024 (UTC)