User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

WrestleMania 23

I don't understand why you left a vandalism template on my talk page. I was only removing your UNSOURCED match (which is only really 1/2 of a match.) All you have to do is wait for the end of RAW, what's the big hurry? Eenu (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it unsourced? They just announced it on international TV. TJ Spyke 02:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Slamboree 95.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Slamboree 95.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:GAB 00.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:GAB 00.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:NYR 05.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:NYR 05.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 19:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Shadowclan Sockpuppets

This article seems to have many sockpuppets supporting it and will not allow another AFD. "shadowclan" is an online gaming guild not notable. Bobbythebuilder 01:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wii Play.jpg)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 02:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BFG06.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:BFG06.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:WrestleMania 23.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WrestleMania 23.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Doctor33

Minutes after his last edit, his sockpuppet case just came through by coincidence. He's finally been given a indefinite block. So I think it's all sorted now. --  oakster  TALK  12:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wii_Play.jpg)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Want to add a comment on the report? You know where to go. -- bulletproof 3:16 00:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


Mod Ruling

Ok, how can we get a mod ruling on this, because this bullshit has to stop. BuyAMountain 00:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because you keep vandalizing the page and won't stop. BTW, there are no mods here, I think you mean admins. TJ Spyke 00:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
No, You're the one vandalizing the page by removing what was essentially the whole fucking point of the show. Also, mods, admins, whatever you wanna call them. Someone needs to make a ruling, because this is pointless.BuyAMountain 00:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of the show was a reunion of ECW wrestlers, the Bischoff thing was just one angle (which was only used to set up the brawl). Now stop pretending your vandalism is justified. TJ Spyke 00:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It was used to set up the brawl. Which is why it happened after the brawl right? Your logic is amazing. BuyAMountain 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I requested mediation BuyAMountain 01:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
You do know that there is a WikiProject for wrestling? WP:PW. TJ Spyke 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 01:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

DX

Please stop removing Ric Flair and John Cena from the list of peripheral members. They are very close to members, Cena's tag-champ with Shawn even, and as the page says, they've allied against Rated RKO many times. Please do not remove this content again. Drake Clawfang 04:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Allies, peripheral members, same difference. Are we really suppose to believe that Mike Tyson and Jason Sensation are more members than Cena or Flair? Drake Clawfang 05:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I've watched WWF/E for years, don't make me out like an idiot. As for the 3RR rules: well, you're removing content for no reason, which I believe is vandalism. Knock yourself out. Drake Clawfang 05:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
After spotting this in the Recent Changes, you have both been reported for 3RR. --Thisisbossi 06:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the DX talk page. Good luck with the 3RR thing. Peace, -- The Hybrid 06:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Check your e-mail William. TJ Spyke 21:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding reversions[1] made on February 4, 2007 to D-Generation X

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Sonic Wii.jpg)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "Before I was blocked, I had started a discussion at Talk:D-Generation X to resolve the dispute (although another editor agreed with me), and we had started to solve it. I also believe the length of my block (48 hours) is unfair. The other editor is the one who started the reverts, did more reverting than me, is currently in trouble for also reverting the Chaz Princeton article, wasn't willing to start a discussion), yet he was only blocked for 8 hours (which means his block has expired). So my block at the very least should be shortened. The other guy seems to be more to blame, so I don't think it's fair my punishment is more than triple his."

Decline reason: "This isn't your first block; looks like your fifth, and your third specifically for 3RR. It would appear to be the other user's first offense. You are well aware of the policy at this point. Kuru talk 04:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Look at the talk page, me and him were trying to solve the problem. Can my block at least be reduced to 24 hours? I would like to be able to edit again before RAW begins (Monday night at 9pm). TJ Spyke 04:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We do need lots of vandal fighters on Monday nights, and he is one of the main vandal fighters who can recognize fancruft, original research, and week-by-week events without error. Block him over a Monday night and tons of wrestling articles pay the price. IMO, he does deserve the 48 hour block, sorry TJ, but we need this guy tomorrow night. Peace -- The Hybrid 04:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Your mail

Re your mail: you got 48h because of your previous record. And please realise that "the other guy started it" is not a good reason for breaking 3RR.

OTOH you're being reasonable now. If you'll leave that article alone for the length of your block (talk page is OK though) and promise to be good, I'll unblock you William M. Connolley 09:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I promise. I will discuss the issue on the talk page, but will leave the actual page alone for a couple of days. TJ Spyke 20:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
OK its done William M. Connolley 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Batista

I didn't add anything that hadn't occurred; Undertaker challenged Batista, it's in the past. It's not speculation, it's fact. (It's on the Undertaker page too.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.39.212.149 (talk • contribs).

The match hasn't occured yet. I will take care of Undertaker's page as well. TJ Spyke 03:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't sound better

Why cant you accept the fact that not everyone is going to share the same views you do? The talk page at WP:PW shows that more people agree it doesn't sound good. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

No one objected because you started reverting before you claimed it sounded better on the project talk page. It doesn't sound better. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't sound right though. Keep it simple. And like I said, do not blatantly revert just because you don't like other edits. Wait, talk it out, and see what happens. We were discussing it on the Project Talk Page, but you had to go ahead and revert anyways without a discussion first. Why do you think this happened? I've been on Wikipedia longer and already you have more consecutive 3RR blocks than I do. Remember talk things out first. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Listen, when someone says, "It took place... (on).... (at)...(in)..." what more do you need to say? If you say "It took place... (on)... AND EMMANATED FROM ... (in)..." it sounds like you are repeating the same thing. It’s like saying "Something took place here and here again". It just doesn't sound right. The other way is better because it’s simple and gets straight to the point. Remember that certain words are best used in the right situations. In this case "AND EMMANATED FROM" is completely unnecessary. For now, there is this you should worry about, [2]. Good luck with that. Cheers! -- bulletproof 3:16 05:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what bulletproof says, you seem to change the endings to the match as well to complete nonsense WITHOUT consulting anyone, plus it might help if you actually watched the pay-per-views so you know what the endings were TheHeartbreakKid15 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

HBK, you are talking utter nonsense and you know it. TJ Spyke 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? And why's that exactly? TheHeartbreakKid15 18:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Wii

In regards to your edit, a link to Nintendo GameCube already exists in the infobox. A second one is redundant and unneeded, especially from the reader's point of view. I believe WP:MOS covers this. Just64helpin 18:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

EWF

Uhhh, how exactly do you figure that the EWF is not notable with so many mainstream sources? - 128.241.40.27 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.138.41.77 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

The page has to establish notability, which so far it doesn't. TJ Spyke 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt answer the question - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.138.41.77 (talk • contribs).

It is not my job to figure out if it's notable, it's the article's job to show why it is notable. TJ Spyke 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
An article on George W. Bush would be deleted if it didn't say why he was important. That same goes for everything else. The page has to say why it is notable. If it doesn't it is useless. -- The Hybrid 02:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.138.41.77 (talk • contribs).

3.38 million vs. 3.19 million

Hi TJ! I've added a new section to the Wii discussion page to talk about the Worldwide numbers. Please see Talk:Wii -> 3.38 million vs. 3.19 million. Thanks! --Jbanes 22:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

NWO 2000 proof

Here are two sites that say that RDJJ was pinned after the 3D:

http://www.gerweck.net/nowayout00.htm

http://slam.canoe.ca/SlamWrestlingPPV/nowayout2000.html

And a picture showing Road Dogg getting pinned from WWE.com:

http://www.wwe.com/shows/nowayout/history/2000/photos/

Also, do you have the tape at home? If you do, I suggest you rewatch it if these sites aren't good enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donco (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

RE: WrestleMania 22

Well, the only reason why I found the WMVI/X8 thing notable was because coincidentally Edge and DDP both returned to compete at a WrestleMania after making an appearance at one before. Not only that but I find it even more interesting that they would return to a WrestleMania in the same stadium they appeared in before. I think it should be added if CM Punk goes on to compete at 23. However, I’m not too sure if he actually was one of the gangsters that appeared at 22 so a source would be need. I'll look for one. -- bulletproof 3:16 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've got a picture of him. He had them up on his website. Check there. BuyAMountain 02:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/6784/19aa0.jpg BuyAMountain 21:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Michaels and Cena Page

Just wanna let you know that the page has been re-created. I don't know how to do the AFD, could you help? User:Killswitch Engage

Re: Children's Machine

Sorry about that. Requested Move section created on talk page. Sigh, my browser crashed again while doing that. It's a Linux-specific problem, apparently. I guess Mozilla don't really care. I was tired and grumpy after it crashed the first time, I just wanted to go to bed, that's why I forgot to complete it. Sorry. — JeremyTalk 10:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Vista

Please restate your opinion on the Vista move on the Vista talk page. Thank you. W3stfa11/Talk to me 03:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Wii code name

The project code name for the Wii console was only "Revolution", just as the code name for the Nintendo GameCube was just "Dolphin" (as opposed to "Nintendo Dolphin"). "Nintendo Revolution" is what the press called it, which was presumably for clarifcation purposes. Information on this should be available in the references and external links of the Wii article. Just64helpin 19:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Angle TNA.jpg)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Mosmof 08:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I think there is no way you could pass an RfA at the current time. People are very conscientious about a block record, and seeing that you were blocked just a week ago, you would definitely receive a ton of opposition. With your block log and history, I would suggest you wait at least 4-5 months before going for RfA. People need to see that you have improved your ways, and they shouldn't be seeing any recent blocks. Also, civility goes a long way. I know there are many accusations of your "article-controlling" and I'd appreciate it if you would assume good faith for some of these users, and discuss with them instead of reverting their edits. You should read WP:VANDALISM; some people complain against you because you write an edit summary like "rv vandalism", but it is just a good faith edit and nothing more. Calling someone's contributions can be slanderous to the person, and by doing so, we might end up losing a member of Wikipedia. So, basically I suggest you polish up your act for a few months before considering adminship here. Nishkid64 14:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, please refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks, BigHairRef | Talk 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Twilight Princess

Please respond at the Twilight Princess talk page. Jedi6-(need help?) 01:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Everybody Votes

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. RobJ1981 04:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. –EdC 11:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Well, I guess you saw you violated 3RR a bit too late, TJ Spyke. If you are in a heated debate over an article and you feel you might cross 3RR, just stop and go to WP:RFPP and request page protection or go to WP:AN/3RR and report the other user for the violation. Thanks. Nishkid64 18:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought about doing that, but I thought I would get blocked as well. I could appeal the block, but they would probably just tell me to wait since it's just a 12 hour block (which expires in about 9 hours). I would think the blocking admin would have looked at what I tried to do to stop the problem, oh well. TJ Spyke 20:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but isn't this like your, eighth one? BuyAMountain 21:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
No. TJ Spyke 05:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
""This isn't your first block; looks like your fifth, and your third specifically for 3RR", well, sixth block. And 4th for 3RR. You get the idea. BuyAMountain 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
3 of those were for actually reverting vandalism. Only 1 (over whether Baby was considered canon in Dragon Ball) did I actually deserve. TJ Spyke 22:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If my experience with you on One Night Stand is any indication, I doubt that's true. Also, 5th. GJ. BuyAMountain 22:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Content disputes aren't vandalism. From what I've seen many of the 3RR violations are because of content disputes. WrestleMania 23 being the most recent example. Things should be discussed, not just reverted over and over until someone gets blocked. Revert and edit wars solve nothing, I would think you should know that by now. RobJ1981 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: SOCOM 4: U.S. Navy SEALs

Re your message: Another admin deleted it again. -- Gogo Dodo 19:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment about Wii Play

The vandalism I reverted was someone replacing content with off topic garbage, it had nothing to do with the cover art. I'm not sure if you were in reference to my edit or not, so I thought I would clear that up. RobJ1981 05:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Votes Channel

Hi, is there any chance of you changing your mind at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Votes? The article is much larger now than it was when you originally nominated it for deletion (see before and after). After all, other Wii Channels have articles too. I think the article stands well on its own now, and has potential to get even better. I'd appreciate it if you'd give it another chance. Thanks. TheCoffee 07:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wing Island.JPG)

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

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 11:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Battle of the Billionaires/Wrestlemania 23

What do you have against official match names? Yes it's also a hair vs hair match, but the official name needs to be listed. Remember the edit war at Cyber Sunday over Champion of Champions? That doesn't need to happen again. I read the talk page of the article as well, and posted there. It's certainly not a tagline. RobJ1981 23:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it is just a tagline, wheras as Cyber Sunday it was for a "title". This is no different than the examples I provided. TJ Spyke 23:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't for a title officially. See Booker's career highlights section on WWE.com. The KotR is listed, but not the CoC match. It was just a tagline at Cyber Sunday as well. -- The Hybrid 23:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Votes Channel

Hey, just so you know, I'm sorry about the revert war we had a few days ago. I wasn't honestly serious about the revisions and meant no harm (If my "pages have souls" thing didn't make this obvious enough =P). However, I'm glad to see the page does have a bit more information. I just want to know why you're so adamant about its redirection. I mean, it certainly doesn't hurt you in any way, and it doesn't hurt Wikipedia's growing reputation as an encyclopedia. It's there to provide infromation, and, from what it looks like so far, it's doing just that. The page has more information than should fit in a small section on the Wii Channels page.Steve HP 23:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

City, state changes by your bot

Why does you bot change city links to city and state links? For example, instead of having Los Angeles, California (one link, to the city), it will change it to Los Angles, California (two links, one to the city and one to the state). It's not needed and is really annoying. TJ Spyke 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Because someone reading, for example, the article Kennesaw may wish to visit the page for Georgia or Cobb County. If they click on "Georgia" they should go to that page, just as clicking on "United States" takes them there not to "Cobb County" or "Georgia". In this particular case Georgia has been split out in the article since 11 September 2003, up to your edit earlier today. Rich Farmbrough, 10:22 16 February 2007 (GMT).

About my change to WWE PPV Page

I thought it was a fan site, sorry BionicWilliam 02:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Little Boogeyman

When I clicked on Little Boogeyman on the No Way Out 2007 article it took me there. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Anyway this needs to be fixed. Big Boss 0 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to work on Short Sleeve Samson's page. Hopefully the people dicking around saying he's the Little Boogeyman will stop. 68.40.242.14 03:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No way out dark match

source Bencey 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. TJ Spyke 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

re:WM 23

It's ok. At least look before you start reverting stuff. You know what happens when you assume. (btw I've got tickets to WrestleMania 23 haha I love letting people know that lol) ThatsHowIRoll 02:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

re:Your edit to Triple Crown Championship

You are the only one to think that the ECW TCC is original research. I am not the only one fixing your changes. The ECW TCC section is just as much not OR as every other section on the TCC page. KonigBerserk 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding the tag is also vandalism. You know that it has never been OR until it was decided that RVD was not counted. When RVD was in it, the TCC was ok but with RVD out, it is OR. Its just you wanting things the exact way you want it instead of the consensus. KonigBerserk 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Its vandalism because it supports your point of view. There was no OR tag until yesterday. It was fine the way it was until you started saying RVD should be considered TCC or it is OR. The only reason you even put OR tag on there was because you want RVD to be on it(which is OR). You are editing only to prove your point. That is vandalism. KonigBerserk 03:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to take a Hybrid stance on this. I am just going to avoid the dispute even though you are obviously arguing just to prove your point. Other people are going to change it anyway, so I don't need to worry. I can see why people are pretty relunctant to believe anything on wikipedia too...KonigBerserk 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Curt Hennig

TJ, Curt Hennig's Hall of Fame inductions has nothing to do with neither his late career nor death. I understand you want to see your name, as you take Wikipedia very serious. Fine. I also see you have now changed the categoy title. Great. However, I still believe his induction is worthy of a seperate category as it is a major event in his legacy. Also, nice work logging into a different username so you could revert and accuse me of 3RR violation. If it's that important to you, so be it. Drksandman 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah TJ, nice work. -- bulletproof 3:16 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to butt in, but I have to say that is one of the most hilarious things I have ever heard. 声援 -- The Hybrid 04:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is silly. I retract anything I said, and hope you'll allow it to be stricken from the record. I just hope you'll consider my recommendation. I am admittedly no Wikiexpert. I only meant to contribute in a positive light. Drksandman 04:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, me and bulletproof are not the same user. It doesn't really matter to me, I was just wondering if it really needs a seperate section since it would get that big (unless you want to make it a "After death" section and make it about everything after he die. TJ Spyke 05:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Votes

Please do not remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TheCoffee 08:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The AFD resulted in it being turned into a redirect. TJ Spyke 09:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
You yourself commented on the deletion review page, and saw the outcome of that review - that the redirect should be unprotected and possible redirection or merging discussed on the article's talk page. Tim 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Everybody Votes Channel

Could you please protect this redirect page (along with the similar page called "Everybody Votes")? There was an AFD and the result was "redirect and protect", but it wasn't protected since an anon IP just vandalized the page by restoring it back to how it was before the AFD. TJ Spyke 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Done. —METS501 (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WWE PPV

I'm no particular mood to keep reverting, so a compromise, the source already stated (which you leave on) says the same as the second source I added for Armageddon, which is 16th December, if you're leaving the source on there then you have to leave the 16th of December on or deleted all the dates because the first source quotes it. And if you don't want to leave the dates on at least leave the second source which confirms the dates for 2007 and adds the 2008 dates for those who want to know them, after all the page depicts future events so could be considered for deletion anyway. Darrenhusted 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC) I'm glad we could reach a compromise. The remaining dates will probably be confirmed once the 'E announce WM24's date during WM23. Darrenhusted 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I never, I reverted a date for February 2008; which said Armageddon was there; which is clearly isn't, so I replaced it with No Way Out. Davnel03 16:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha, my Edit to Wrestlemania 23...

...was completely justified at the time. It was confirmed on www.wwe.com on their WM23 website. I'm well aware of the rules of Wikipedia, and added them because it wasn't there to begin with. (yeah, I just found the message, I'm slow, shut up) Qubeh 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


WrestleMania 23

The Hair vs. Hair match participants and referee has been confirmed on various local news outlets. Please see this image for proof...[3] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamestrepanier (talk • contribs).

"That doesn't confirm the match, and it isn't considered official either. TJ Spyke 21:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)"

Are you stupid or ignorant by choice? I think when a company holds a press conference to make an announcement, that pretty much makes whatever they announced to be official. Regardless of the fact that they haven't announced it on their kayfabe programming, they have definitely confirmed the match in the legitimate media. I won't bother re-editing the page, because ignorant control freaks like you will just change it back. Jamestrepanier 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

User notification template for unverified info/dates

Hi TJ Spyke,

{{Unreferenced msg}}
{{Unreferenced vgdate msg}}

I've made this template to notify users on their talk page when an edit of theirs has been reverted because it could not be verified. A bit like the warning templates, but then just a notice of what's happened to their edits. One is for information, the other for video game releasedates.

Since you revert quite some of those, I thought it could come in handy.
Feedback or ideas are also welcome. JackSparrow Ninja 22:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will probably use these. TJ Spyke 22:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console Lineup

First of all, I'm sorry this is an anonymous posting (IP address notwithstanding), but I'm not a member here and I was curious about something. I noticed that you keep removing the number from the date for Bio-Hazard Battle. Now, I understand that the official date has not come out yet, however the only remaining possibility for this game to be released in February is the 26th. Is there a particular reason that you are being such a stickler about this? If the game doesn't show up on the 26th, it isn't going to be a February release. Like I said, I was just wondering, and all apologies if this is not the correct forum for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.12.199.12 (talk) 03:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

It probably will be next Monday, but no official source says that yet. There is always a small possibility it could be released on a different day. It's been agreed only to use official release dates, and I think we should stick to that. TJ Spyke 04:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi. Please be careful not to do this: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Three-revert rule aside, it's a good rule on the wiki that if anything you want to do involves reverting the same thing more than once, then there's some better way to do it.

We've got a situation here where an admin closed a more request one way, and some editors feel strongly that it should have gone the other way. The solution is to get more people's opinions, probably by setting up an RFC on the whole three-article situation. Even if Chriscf gets those pages moved, they'll move back if the broader community supports your preferred title. Patience pays around here. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[8] made on February 22, 2007 to TNA Impact! (video game)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.
The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 11:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Re your mail: if you're reverting vandalism you need to (a) say so very clearly and (b) be very sure you're right. In this case I can't see either William M. Connolley 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The user was trying to speedy delete a page to get around a failed move request. TJ Spyke 23:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs) asked to be unblocked, but an administrator or other user has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators or users can also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). This unblock request continues to be visible. Do not replace this message with another unblock request nor add another unblock request.

Request reason: "I was reverting vandalism. A user was unhappy that the page wasn't moved (because he supported the move), so he went ahead and move the pages anyways. He was trying to get the redirect for the video game page speedy deleted so he could make that move (which also failed in the move request) anyways. The 3RR clearly says that reverting vandadalism isn't violating the 3RR. Two other editors (including an admin) also agreed that the user shouldn't have gone ahead and move them anyways. All I did was removed the speedy delete tag."

Decline reason: "Your block log does not cause me to be inclined to believe you. Be aware that your next block for 3RR may be a much longer or indefinite one. -- Sandstein 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)"

This template should be removed when the block has expired, or after 2 days in the case of blocks of 1 week or longer.

Did you even look at what that vandal did? If you had, then you would know I was reverting vandalism. I want another admin to review my request, and to actually do their job by checking. TJ Spyke 00:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Comment

TJ, that didn't look like vandalism. It looked like a legitimate dispute. The Arb Com holds a lot of power, so whether or not the move request failing would overrule that is a legitimate concern that deserved to be reviewed by the admin who would see the notice, IMO anyway. Agreed, you have a lot of experience, so there is a good chance that you would know what would happen in that situation, but to me it looks like you violated the 3RR, as that doesn't look like vandalism, and the admins seem to agree. 声援 -- The Hybrid 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Title Names

Didn't mean to cause a fuss, it's just that I felt that it was redundant to have WWF/E in every title name.

I thought that it would look neater my way. Wasn't trying screw anything up. Ohgltxg 2:41 25 February, 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/j/_/User_talk%7ETJ_Spyke_Archive_6_cc80.html"