User talk:JimRDJones

Are you serious?

You added another IP. When you first contacted me with your first ip, we talked about your edits. I openly acknowledged that I removed the info from Peter King assuming it was vandilism because you edited as an ip. Can you think of any logic to why I would frown on edits from ips, and then edit from an ip myself. Your edits to the disambig page showed you not only violating NPOV, but showed you had no clue about WP:MOS either. When you brought up Hitler and bin laden, I knew you had no clue about MOS and had no intention of keeping a NPOV. Many people I know who live in his congressional district, had no clue about that. I know Robert Byrd as the senator who was a member of the KKK, but most people who live in his state don’t even know that. For the one millionth time, I absolutely support keeping information good and bad about King, as long as it is relevant, sourced, and keeps a NPOV. The way the IRA section was originally absolutely did not keep a NPOV. The way the IRA is written now is fine, and I would not remove or change it. You however see someone remove it and accuse me of sockpuppetry. You then leave a comment on my page, pretending you “attempted to tread very lightly with you and to show good faith while trying to resolve this dispute amicably”, even though you had already attempted to block me BEFORE you left that comment. I will maintain I never was a sockpuppeter an hope you do a little more research on the other people you are accusing so you see I was not lying. - Rockyobody (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I will have to admit that throughout the situation I have been somewhat counterproductive. I still will dispute any sockpuppetry claims, especially by Thorburn. I wanted to retire, but I really cant until it’s known on wiki that I was never a sockpuppeter. So do you think we can make this process go faster, so that I can retire knowing I am not going to be wrongly accused of something I have worked against during my time on wiki? - Rockyobody (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Cover-up

Why am I automatically guilty without explanation? I'm being honest, which is more than rockyobody, thorburn, the ips or you can say. Please tell me why I was accused without anyone saying anything to me, I found out about the accusations when I clicked on my page at the top. I am probably going to have to report to an admin because it is not fair to me since I have done nothing wrong. Eaglesfan619 (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't accuse you of being a sockpuppet of Rockyobody, but having had a quick look at your edit history it looks like it is quite possible that you are. When you edited the investigation page to remove yourself from the list of suspected sockpuppets and removed the notice from your page it just made you look guilty. If you are a legitimate user then you should just wait to see what comes of the investigation rather than remove things. JimRDJones (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be fair

Even though I do not believe I was being fairly treated, I do not want to be the same way. So I am letting you know I have filed a sockpuppet report on you.Eaglesfan619 (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post your request to me to WT:SPI

I'm really not sure whats going on, I'm really tired its past midnight where I am... so please post your request to WT:SPI where a clerk or admin (I'm not a clerk, just the guy that programmed the bot for that process) can look at it. —— nix eagle^{email me} 04:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Matt Sydal

I disagree. He used the name "Matt Sydal" from 2003 to 2007, in promotions such as ROH and TNA and in Japan. This argument could go either way, however, the article has been edited, and doesn't state that he is better known by either Evan Bourne and Matt Sydal, but rather just that he is known as both. I find this an acceptable compromise, and I hope you do too. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Threw My Two Cents In

We'll see if anything comes from it, but I wouldn't bank on it. Glad to help where I can. --ECWAGuru (talk) 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Evan Bourne.

I understand that, but I think you can interrupt it another way. His WWE fans are not as likely to know of his ROH name. His ROH fans are much more likely to know his WWE name, thus creating more people who know him as Sydal and Bourne then just Bourne. 17:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that those people that DO know of the existence of ROH probably watch ECW as well. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of people that know him only as Sydal may be lower, but the number who know him by BOTH names is higher. Meaning that more people would know him as Sydal. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of people that know him as Bourne and Sydal > # of people that know him as Bourne > # of people who know him as Sydal. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you get what I'm saying here. The people that know him as Sydal ALSO know him as Bourne, while those that ONLY know him as Bourne don't know him as Sydal. Thus, more people TOTAL know him as Sydal. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will sound really stupid and you'll probably think I'm an idiot, but it doens' tmake sense to me anymore either. Somehow (maybe I have ring name-specific dyslexia) I was proving your argument while trying to prove mine. No idea what I was think. I guess I'm just tired from working double shifts. O_O Gavyn Sykes (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]