Jump to content

User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20←Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26→Archive 30

User:24.12.89.226

I don't think this person is going to let this champions situation on the WWE talk page go, TJ. Time perhaps for some further action to be considered? !! Justa Punk !! 11:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's the same person on each IP comment - and it happens to be the IP of L2K maybe action could be taken? !! Justa Punk !! 22:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I saw you back me up on the talk page concerned, so we can wait and see if the user edits again. If so, you could remind him of the rules again (I think you've already done that once) and if they carry on as a result then perhaps call in an admin with checkuser. Shame you don't. !! Justa Punk !! 23:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dates

Not true, I've been told that dates need to be formatted in either American (April 14, 2009) or International (14 April 2009) style. Thus, me changing back the dates to American style, instead of having them set-up as "2009-04-14". Also, there needs to be a consistency between the dates in the refs. A good example of this is Changeling, in which the refs. are either used in "cite web" or "cite news". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ECW 2009 to present

Just wanted to agree with you that stating he wants the ECW title is probably not notably, but it also doesn't seem to hurt too much until we have more to put under this heading. Just responding to your edit summary. Live it love itMephYazata (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversion on PlayStation

I'm not sure I agree that a link to ePSXe is inappropriate on that article. It's certainly not advertising. Take a look over here. Would you have any objection to someone writing up a similar emulation section and placing it in the article?  :) Lychosis T/C 00:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay. By the by, while we're on the subject of emulation, doesn't it seem like List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System emulators should probably be merged with List of video game console emulators? Or am I way off base? I just don't see any reason why it should exist seperately. Thanks in advance for your input.  :) Lychosis T/C 00:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User MShake

Vandalizes alot of pages including the Mania page recently should we report him? I would back you up on it if you wanted to do it.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WWE template

As far as I know, WWE.com is a bit behind compared to the WWE Universe chat. -- Oakster  Talk  19:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, make that 4 people behind. -- Oakster  Talk  19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hey. Sign into Windows Live. Save Us.Y2J 11:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Explanation

Hey, just thought I'd explain why I reverted you on SummerSlam (2008). The source given in the article for the times is [1], so the ip's edit was actually correct. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I just figured we should stick to the source in the article, or else it just gets confusing. Go ahead and change it in the article. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels Edit War

I will admit that there was an edit war going on ivolving me. But why single me out? In order to have an edit war, there has to be two users involved right? Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --WillC 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Emmascarado

I'm sorry but why exactly are you changing the word "Enmascarado"?? That is how it's written in the Mondo Lucha book and every other source I've seen using the term. I'm curious to where the other word comes from? MPJ-DK (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Just Cause 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Just Cause 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lockdown

The best way to do this is to leave them outside of the table. That way we can move them with ease. Also we avoid having problems such as OR, Crystal, etc if you see where I'm going. We've talked about this before remember.--WillC 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no agreement what so ever on either. The reason they put them in WWE ones is Truco made everyone. The ROH ones get no notice. It is OR, tell me how it isn't. My warning is as well. Mine were funded on polocies. And I'll tell you now, if you revert a single editor one more time on that page, I will ask for you to be blocked. You have violated the 3RR I have not.--WillC 01:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is wrong? You seem pissed off at me like I did something. I feel we should follow the policy we've always followed. Go one by one, the same way they did with WrestleMania just two weeks ago. The only reason I don't use the table before events is it is easier to move with bullet points. You yourself from what I understand like that over the table. How have I pissed you off for you to have become pissed at me and giving me false warnings? Tell me. How?--WillC 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mine to answer the above, please?--WillC 01:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, sorry if I worsened that bad mood. That was not my intention. Was making sure the article followed polocies considering the article usually ends up being shit during the show. I'm just trying to find the best way to have the article. How about we make a compromise? Before the event we have the matches as bullet points. You don't like the table and I don't like the table before the events because it gets in the way, is easier to use bullet points, and will have to be re-done when the event comes. During the event we'll list all matches in the table. Give no number like last night and that will be all. You were never for the table and I'm still not sure about it. Sound good? No one even watches the TNA events, so I never thought that the bullet points would be a problem.--WillC 02:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Well the consensus for the table is this, we list "results". Was never to my knowledge was it to be used before the event. Was always to afterwards. Truco just started to place it end when they announced the matches and people followed. I even remember seeing it done for the first time and asking myself, was it supposed to be used before events? When I knew it was not. So I never said anything and just used bullet points on the TNA stuff. I'm just hoping they never go back to that. There are a few new ones editing the TNA stuff. But not much. In my eyes, the project is still Wikipedia:Project World Wrestling Entertainment and other shit.--WillC 02:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you unwilling to discuss?

Why are you not willing to discuss the linking in the Mickie James article? And example of what I mean: :...Stratus' biggest fan turned obsessed stalker..." You want linked to the wrestling term "turn". However, the common English use of the word "turn" is to change. How does that differ from the wrestling definition. Terms like kayfabe.....yes, those are unique to wrestling and those links are appropriate. But linking words like "turn" really don't clarify anything to a non-fan, it just adds more blue type to an article that is already awash in it. Further, linking common words like "farm" don't enhance the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Next, you keep re-adding links to things like "American", leading to the article about the United States. The overlink policy cites that as a specific example of what NOT to link. Links to locations, words etc that people commonly understand aren't needed. So no, Washington DC really shouldn't be linked. It is a location known to most readers. How many English speakers don't know what the United States is? Or what New York City is? Lastly, sending readers to generic articles doesn't enhance understanding this article, which is the purpose of linking. Does sending someone to the article about DC enhance their understanding?

I termed your wholesale reversion as "vandalism" because you aren't talking about specific things, but simply clicking undo. I have asked TWICE to discuss and you simply ignored it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  • You stated that US should be linked in the intro. From wp:overlink, an example of United States being linked in an article about supply and demand: "do not link to the "United States", because that is a very large article with no explicit connection to supply and demand." There is no explicit connection to Mickie James in the article about the US. And again I ask, what English speaker doesn't know what the United States is? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Again, the basic question: What English speaker doesn't already know what the United States is? In any case, as I've stated in the discussion page, this WAS to be my first step in improving the article to submit for GA status. Overlinking is one thing that gets looked at. But you clearly want to fight about every word involved and I'm not going to get into some pedantic dispute about every single word. As I said, I was careful to delink by section so that someone wouldn't have to do a massive reversion of everything, like you did. In any case, I'm done. Let someone else pursue GA status for the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carly Colón → Carlito Colón

Mania 23 BS

TJ, I just did a Whois on 75.89.11.42 and 98.17.138.239 and it's the same provider - and then a Geolocate was the same as well. Likely the same person. FYI. !! Justa Punk !! 11:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo

The Source will evantually be on there.It was announced on Impact when Tickets go on Sale May 8th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs)

If they did, it will be on TNA's site later tonight. TJ Spyke 02:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude,your better then that.Don't a douchebag Ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize

Thank you for voicing your opinion on my request to move the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" page. I'd like to point out that I responded, explaining why I think neutrality is a clear problem and why there ISN'T a clear question when it comes to "common usage". Again, thank you! --kittyKAY4 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry for changing the WWE Smackdown announcers. I thought it was always to list the Play by Play announcer first. (User talk:A.lanzetta) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

"ECW" is moving back to 10:00PM Eastern/9:00PM Central on Sci Fi beginning May 5, 2009.

ECW on Sci Fi is moving back to 10:00PM Eastern/9:00PM Central beginning May 5, 2009. Please click on the following link: http://www.sescoops.com/wwe/ECW_On_Sci_Fi_Changing_Timeslots_Again_Sexiest_WWE_Divas.shtml and then let me know whether or not this is the reliable source I picked out. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick Schommer

You may be interested in Nick Schommer. Grsz11 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my recent revert

..of WWE Raw. I was a tad slow in hitting the revert button. :) Rockfang (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

I'd just like to point out, that you made a mistake when reverting me. All I did was copy the hidden warning from one article and place it in Kane's. I did not think anything about the difference between rumor and rumour. I fixed the warning, because it messed up the section header. If you look at your revision, you'll see what I mean. My point is that you shouldn’t revert people without checking. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

You're right, you don't need my approval to format it correctly. However, you do seem to need my help with it. So why exactly does rewording things make me a dictator? And I love being accused of never bringing things up on the talk page by someone who never brings up things on the talk page. Anyway, there is no need to say that Rhodes, etc. were in the match because they had no chance at all of winning the title (and it doesn't really matter since Orton got the pin. If Rhodes/DiBiase had gotten it, THEN it would matter). -- Scorpion0422 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And do we really need to go through this every pay per view? I make an edit, you revert it with a snarky comment. I revert you and leave some sarcastic reply, then you bitch about it on my talk page. -- Scorpion0422 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I love being accused of ownership issues and edit warring by a user who has been blocked for it many times, banned before and even limited to 1RR who I've seen edit warring on many pages. The irony is that you accuse me of not using talk pages when you yourself rarely use them. I also only had three reverts, the first one was me adding the original content. -- Scorpion0422 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand something here, so maybe you can help me out. You call me the "dictator of these lists" when in fact I rarely edit them any more and when it is, it's minor fixes or vandalism reverts. You also claim that you don't really care about what happens about this list, and yet, you kept reverting (while, ironically, chastising me for edit warring and not using the talk page) and you admitted that you basically did it just because I made the edit. This is not surprising because it has happened before. Remember List of The Simpsons episodes when I added a production code and you immediately reverted me because not even the mighty Jimbo can add things without sources and yet, you didn't revert a similar edit to the season 20 page or any other of the many unsourced facts added to the page? So, you call me a dictator and you admit you don't care and you don't think you have ownership issues. And yet, you are demanding that others revert me [2]. Isn't that counter-productive? What is the point of a talk page discussion if you are just going to order people to revert what you disagree with? -- Scorpion0422 03:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"I basically just gave my approval to anyone who wants to put it back in." I don't even know where to begin telling you what is wrong with this statement. You obviously don't get what wikipedia is about, perhaps you should start your own website, then you can do whatever you like. -- Scorpion0422 03:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


As I said before...

Thank for contributing to the misconseption(?) that wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. As fin has pointed out something doesn't have to be proven false...it has to be proven true. But apperantly you don't understand that so have it your way. Put potentially false info with an unreliable source on wikipedia for all to see...again. 12.199.45.138 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So amazon is reliable now? I never got the memo... 12.199.45.138 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Cause 2

Hello there. Just a friendly reminder not to template regulars. Also, the Just Cause 2 artwork doesn't not have to be proven false, it has to be proven true. You can't "prove" that something like boxart is false anyway, with no confirmed release date, I think it's safe to say the boxart is placeholder stuff generated by game sites or retail. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think a revert, with an edit summary, and the fact that I've commented on the talk page, deserved a vandalism warning. Also, not to be a WP:DICK, but WP:DTTR actually says a personal warning works better, not that users should still be templated if they've warranted it. As regards the boxart, the fact that Eidos/Avalanche haven't announced any platforms, yet the original version of the boxart shows "only on 360", is enough to confirm it as user generated. Also, I don't think just because Amazon has box art is reason to trust it and add it to the wiki article - Amazon's God of War III page has boxart, but it's clearly placeholder. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi again. Sorry, I still don't see why not having proof that something is false is reason to add it - WP:BURDEN says something has to be proven to be true. You haven't addressed the fact that the boxart had "Only on 360" on it. Likewise, as I've noted above, just because Amazon has a boxart does not mean it's the actual boxart. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Ur, so you're saying that anything that comes from Amazon is ok because Amazon itself is a reliable source? So it's ok to use Amazon's Borderland's boxart because it exists (despite it not having a confirmed release date)? What about the release date Amazon states? Is it ok to use that? Not all information on Amazon is confirmed and true. You also still haven't answered the point I've made about the JC2 art being fake - it has "Only on 360" on it, despite no platforms being confirmed. If you still feel strongly about this, I think I'll bring it up at WT:VG. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I brought it up on WT:VG, sorry for the delay (didn't realise you weren't going to reply). Feel free to chip in! Thanks! Fin©™ 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi there. Discussion at WT:VG led to a consensus not to include the box art. Please stop reverting and accusing other editors of vandalism. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Em, four editors replied (Zxc, sesu, Jin and 12.), not one. Just a reminder to keep cool during discussions aswell, getting heated doesn't help anyone. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why I should restore the image. Why, as you state, should it remain in the article unless there is consensus to remove? As I've stated above, the WP:BURDEN is on the adder of information to prove it's correct. I also don't see why it makes me look vindictive. I don't believe it should be in the article, so do a number of other editors, so I removed it. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Just Cause 2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Just Cause 2.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, it's me, the man that put the BFG photos in spanish. I have made a wikipedia account. I only want to said you this and a thing about the Frontline. Ok, I understand Eric Young, but you said i nthe article that this wrestlers don't appear in the Line. I thibk that the mebers are AJ, Samoa, Daniel, JeffJarret (lockdown 2009) maybe eric young, but ODB appear two times, Lethal Consequences don't appear more, the same with Rhino and the Guns now are heel. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. If you can help me again. I about the X Division regin of Eric Young, because I dont see anything about his regin are official. For example, in this page http://solie.org/titlehistories/tnaxnwa.html said that Bashir have two regins and Young one, in this page http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Wrestling/PPVReports/2008/12/07/7664991.html said that Young win the title, but the page can be confused. Only TNA said the official regins. Finally, http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/titles/tna/xdivision/ said that his two regins were rebocated. Can you help me? I said a lot of references. Can you give me another? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The

Dude, that is his ring name. "The" is apart of it. Should we with The Undertaker just write The [[The Undertaker|Undertaker]]? No, because that is his full ring name. Showing the Road Warriors doesn't do much. They aren't a current team so no one in project world wrestling entertainment even cares about the article so it falls behind on the times. In the end, The Brian Kendrick is his full ring name, so it should all be linked. Should we not link all of Randy Orton? Anyway, I don't care. I'm just tired of the never ending edit war over the name in the template.--WillC 04:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How exactly is it over linking? Perhaps my understanding of the policy is wrong, but would overlinking not be if his name was linked several times in the template (in fact, linking twice to the Hawkins/Ryder article is more overlinking than that). Having it linked looks better and it really does no harm (all it does is add an extra 15 or so characters, I'd say that's acceptable). Only you would get into a months long edit war over the word "the", maybe you should try doing something more productive than edit warring over a template? -- Scorpion0422 02:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
What the hell do you mean by "looks terrible written twice"? Perhaps my understanding of templates is wrong, but is the [[Brian Kendrick| part not invisible? -- Scorpion0422 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop acting like you are the dictator of these lists templates. I don't need your approval to format it correctly. If you disagree you should bring it up on the talkpage instead of acting like you have the right to decide how the article template is written. -- Scorpion0422 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one enjoying the irony? In the past, you said I was an edit warrior who refused to use the talk page. Now, you're edit warring and refusing to discuss on the talk page, even though I've asked you to explain your comments in more detail. -- Scorpion0422 21:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And no you haven't given any good reasons. You say it's over linking, yet I searched through the relevant policy and couldn't find anything in it that agreed with you. You say it "looks terrible written twice" even though the finished version still only shows one good link. And, you are a hippocrate for criticizing me about how I edit wared without using the talk page and yet (and you have insisted that others use the talk page), and yet now you are doing the exact same thing. It's really not worth getting into this with you because it is so minor and you are too stubborn and possessive to discuss things rationally. -- Scorpion0422 16:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey, my name is yan and i understood about the TBA nd TBD and my question is why did you deleted the Background that i wrote in the article Sacrifice (2009) about Booker T and A.J Styles? what wrong?YanT5 (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


Lol i am not write english perfectly, ty for putting back the background. you are inchanrge of the TNA portal here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanT5 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ok, i have another question: why when i put in Slammiversary (2009) the King of the Mountion Match its got deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanT5 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ahhh ok, did you wrote all the article of the TNA PPV? and the sacrifice PPv preview? if you do, so you doing a great job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanT5 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

i am new here so i didn't knew about the nickname's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanT5 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

we can be partners of doing TNA article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanT5 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Wii games

Just so you know, I'm working on a major overhaul to the article which will address all the issues it currently has. That means that every time you make an update I have to check to make sure that I account for all of them in my version of the article. This isn't your problem at all, I'm just saying this because the article is so big now that it frequently times out for me making proofreading a bitch. Are you planning to make more changes? (I'm just one man T_T)  æron phone home  07:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

That's part of what I meant by "issues". I've been finding 'extra' code scattered within the table that is invisible upon rendering but the more I take out the better the page behaves. Pain in the butt indeed.  æron phone home  07:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 10:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Improve

hey can you improve this text that i wrote in Sacrifice (2009):


At Lockdown (2009), Angelina Love "stole" from Awesome Kong her TNA Women's Knockout Championship after she pinned Taylor Wilde in there 3-Way Dance match. on TNA Impact! 23 April, 2009, The Beautiful People (professional wrestling) by lead of Angelina Love cut Kong hair and they ran away and Kong was upset, on TNA Impact! 30 April, 2009, Kong was in a Stretcher match against one of The Beautiful People member Madison Rayne in that match Kong won cleany and she was one step over of beating Angelina Love and destroy her, on TNA Impact! 8 May, 2009, Kong contiund her domination of destroying Angelina Love when she defeated another Beautiful People member Velvet Sky in a Stretcher match, she sendend a messege to Love in both matches that she want to retain her TNA Women's Knockout Championship and she will get a chance in Sacrifice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YanT5 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Peep Show

I don't understand the furor.

The Peep Show on ECW was advertised on Raw yesterday, and on WWE.com today.

It's not like I'm throwing crap on there for the hell of it.

Christian's bringing back the Peep Show on ECW just like MVP brought the VIP Lounge over to Raw.

I don't see the problem.

Vjmlhds 22:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, TJ. I just reverted several of the pipelinks you inserted or modified in the Rochester, New York article. You do not always have to change links to redirects to point to their targets! In fact, doing so is often the wrong thing to do. Please use more care in the future. Thanks! Powers T 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, fixing non-broken redirects is often the wrong thing to do. I'm afraid I don't understand your comment about "pointing out a redirect"; can you explain? Powers T 12:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The reasons for not "fixing" redirect links are well explained in the above link. To use your "Famicom" example, suppose that in the future it is decided to split Famicom and NES into separate articles. If all the links look like [[Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom]], then someone has to go and change them all to [[Famicom]]. On the other hand, if the links already read [[Famicom]], then no change is necessary. There are many other reasons not to fix links to redirects, and they're all listed on the policy page I linked.
As for "SentrySafe", look again at your edit. You changed [[Sentry Safe]] to [[SentrySafe|Sentry Safe]]. If you then look carefully at my edit, you'll see I did not revert you, but rather fixed the link to read [[SentrySafe]]. If "SentrySafe" is the name, with no space, then that's what the article should say; piping it to an incorrect spelling makes no sense.
As for Bausch & Lomb, I didn't touch that link.
Finally, you say: "I could understand editing the article to fix just 1 link, but I was cleaning up the entire article, not just 1 or 2 links." I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. I realize you were making a large number of changes, and most of them were good, but some of the redirect-link fixes you made were unnecessary, and even undesirable in many cases. I only reverted (or modified, as in the case of SentrySafe) those few.
-- Powers T 01:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

TJ, you continue to unnecessarily repair links to redirects, despite my explanations for why it shouldn't be done. Please stop. By all means, continue your fine work in repairing links to disambiguation pages, but "fixing" links to redirects causes damage to the web of links in Wikipedia. If you disagree with the guideline on repairing links to redirects, I encourage you to bring up the subject on the talk page. Thank you! Powers T 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

RE

I was mainly referring to Shark Boy not being featured in a major role. He is back to being a jobber. The Stone Cold thing is somewhat dead.--WillC 22:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Backlash

Cheers for the subediting. Tony2Times (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania 23

I just noticed your comment on Nici's talkpage. The place to go is WP:SPI as they may be able to do an IP rangeblock. D.M.N. (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks D.M.N.! Yeah, an ip rangeblock would probably be the best bet, or it's possible taht an underlying ip address could be blocked, although I'm not quite sure. If either of those aren't feasible I'd suggest requesting semi-protection anyway, explaining the situation. I mean looking at the history, the last 50/60 edits have all been vandalism or vandalism reversion. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright. I'd suggest talking to an admin about it though, it's possible they'd know something that might help. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Appalling conduct

Do not vandalise articles, then threaten people who correct your vandalism. Being aggressive will not paper over the fact that your edits constitute appalling vandalism. 81.170.16.208 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Test edit

What experimenting are you talking about? I just corrected the names because the article clearly stated that the Survivor series match consisted of three teams - Legion of Doom, The Road Warriors and The Nation of Domination. Since The Legion of Doom and The Road Warriors are the same, I just renamed it. You are really annoying. --Pavlen (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:IP

I honestly see nothing wrong with EITHER version of the page and have no clue how either of you could consider the edits of the other to be vandalism. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:R2D

Greetings--I'm just leaving a friendly note to let you know about WP:R2D; it's part of the guideline on redirects that discourages making changes such as replacing [[Munich, Germany]] with [[Munich|Munich, Germany]] as you did at this diff. It's not a change that really helps anything, it can actually hurt, and not seeking out those kinds of changes to make can free up your time to do other things that help the encyclopedia. Take care, and happy editing. Croctotheface (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious about why you disagree with the guideline. Why is it worth changing that link to a pipe? Croctotheface (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on what you mean by "fixing." A link that points to a disambig page or to some page other than where it should go is obviously in need of fixing. The guideline only recommends against a "fix" that does not actually fix anything. I disagree that making such changes doesn't hurt by definition (it doesn't hurt sometimes, but it can hurt other times, so why risk it), but if it doesn't hurt, it certainly doesn't help, either. The reader has the same experience either way. As far as ways that it can hurt, R2D describes a few, and I'm curious about why you don't find them at all persuasive. While they certainly don't show that this kind of change will destroy the encyclopedia, I'm curious about why the ways in which an R2D change can be detrimental don't give you pause. It's certainly harder to read [[Munich|Munich, Germany]] in the page source than it is to just read [[Munich, Germany]]. There's the use of whatlinkshere to track which terms are being linked. Third, there's the issue with having all that work undone if the page is moved--I recall a bunch of editors going around and changing links when the Dwayne Johnson article went back and forth between that title and The Rock (entertainer). And finally, the future article issue. It's not applicable to the Munich link, but would you agree that an R2D change would be bad if the redirect linked to a particular section in an article that could someday be spun off into its own article? If that does happen, all the links to the redirect will point to the right place, but the "fixed" links won't. Croctotheface (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

ECW Sci-Fi edit

I sincerely apologize. I am not that good at using the citing code. Could I provide you a link (a source for why I edited the article with that information) so you could cite it? Also, I will probably send you the link on my account (I don't use it often, as I feel there is no difference in my use). 69.120.33.166 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is my account, if you need to know. Anyways, technically, it is from the WWE itself, at least its website. It's a link to the most recent "episode" of "The Dirt Sheet". If it doesn't work, let me know. http://www.wwe.com/content/media/video/vms/dirtsheet/2009/may15-21/10213768?cid=2009EP-00

MarioGalaxy (talk) 02:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. MarioGalaxy (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 -- Wade Keller

As per your note on the discussion page, I added a link to the post in question. --204.246.229.248 (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gail Kim

Hey Gail kims move is called now the flying dragon. i saw smackdown today and there the commantator said that the move is called the flying dragon she did it on michelle mccool —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amare135 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


where should i have a source from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amare135 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to you

Hey, I'm going to be out of town this weekend, so it is up to you to make sure that Sacrifice (2009) is not fucked up by people. Good luck, I sense alot of ips this time around.--WillC 16:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, somewhat. Good luck though.--WillC 16:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Metroid Prime Trilogy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Metroid Prime Trilogy.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 10:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Burma/Myanmar

I have reverted your edit to List of sovereign states. There has been much debate at Wikipedia over which name should be used, and the central location for the debate is at Talk:Burma/Myanmar. Until a resolution is reached there, we should use a consistent name, which is the name the country article is at.-gadfium 01:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There has to be some consistency over what names we use. I don't think it's acceptable to use one name in some articles, and another one in others.-gadfium 01:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't deeply considered the issue, but it seems to me to be reasonable for all countries in a list such as this to be under the same name as we use for the article on the country, so yes, North Korea and South Korea should be under "N" and "S", with redirects under "K". I suggest you raise the matter on the talk page. However, if this is a controversial matter, as Burma/Myanmar clearly is, then it needs to be sorted out at the talk page of the country first.-gadfium 02:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Newsletter

TJ, I never said that you have no right to edit the newsletter, and I never said or implied that I was the boss or owner of the newsletter. Please assume good faith on my part. If you had asked me civilly, I would have assumed that you are talking about this reversion, since you didn't clarify, and then I would have explained that changing redirects is highly unecessary, in fact there is even a guideline regarding it: WP:R2D. Also like I tried to explain in my edit summary, the redirects are fine as the newsletter already is quite longin bytes by the time it reaches someone's talk page, and making it longer by spelling out for example Wikipedia:Featured articles when WP:FA works just as well is pointless in opinion. Also in the diff I provided above, you introduced the wrong number of members, and addded The Fabulous Moolah and Bruno Lauer as GANs, when they were already listed. Please don't me so quick to assume that I don't want you editing the newsletter, and please be a bit more civil on my talk page, I don't appreciate being treated like a five-year old. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TJ_Spyke/Archive_24&oldid=1230954720"