Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 13 April 2008

October 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to One Night Stand (2007). Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Gscshoyru 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One Night Stand (2007). 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Bfigura 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Merope 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LifeStroke420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because Im right here. The page doesnt need all that cruft. NONE of the other wrestling articles have it. The information need to be in the individual articles not in the page.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not an acceptable way to change an article. I cannot see any evidence that you even tried to discuss your desired changes on the talk page. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 22 October 2007 (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.

One Night Stand (2007)

The reason for the "cruft" as put it, is that User:Davnel03 managed to create a separate article for several PPVs that was well sourced. The project would be better off if all PPVs had a page like ONS 2007 does. There is no reason to remove it, it's perfectly sourced. Another similar article recently passed GA review and has been promoted. If you're going to make so major a change, discuss it on the talk page (as Davnel did when he decided to create the article in the first place. Gavyn Sykes 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both SummerSlam (1993) and December to Dismember (2006) use this format and have been promoted to Good Article status. Several more articles are currently being expanded, including One Night Stand (2007). The goal is to have a full report on all pay per views sometime down the road. GaryColemanFan 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See? Why didnt someone tell me this?LifeStroke420 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason is because you kept reverting my edits, and left a personal insult on my talkpage. Davnel03 12:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? After I reverted the first time you came on here and threatened me. Thats unexceptable. Im gonna report you for it unless i recieve a apology.LifeStroke420 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I never threatened you. I left a warning on your userpage (which is mandatory for most people if I see them vandalise). You removed the info here without discussing it at the talkpage. Hence, why I left you this warning. Instead of attempting of discuss it, you left a personal insult on my talkpage. Personal insults are not tolerated on Misplaced Pages. Davnel03 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok your supposed "warning" was a threat. It was in a threatful manner and it was rude. I didnt personnally insult you. You told me if i reverted the edit one more time you would ban me. It was my first revert and it was days old. Thats a threat. Now why don't you apologize and well end this whole mess.LifeStroke420 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a warning the template labels it as a warning. If you have a problem with that, take it up with WP:UW, preferably on this page. I apologise if it came across to you as a threat, but it wasn't intended as a threat. Davnel03 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You used the wrong template.LifeStroke420 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you work that out? On a side note, you should be able to edit the article mainspace now. Davnel03 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How do i work what out? Also im blocked until 4 for some reason its 2 right now.LifeStroke420 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you could. You could start writing a PPV if you wanted too. Tell me a WWE PPV DVD that you have that you like, and we'll go from there. Davnel03 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: DX

I'm not getting in an edit war over this, as, in all honesty I agree wholeheartedly with you. But others disagree and point to the episode of Raw last week as the source. During the discussion it came to light that unfortunately, this is all open to interpretation so we came to a compromise that satisfied both sides, we leave them in the article but put (honorary member) next to their names. This was the consensus. However, as I type this (I was going to point the discussion out on the user's talk page), I realize the editor who opposed the view we share is now suspected of sock puppetry, so until that clears up I guess it's okay to leave it the way it is. I would point you to the discussion I had with him about this and the consensus reached, but if he's engaged in sock puppetry, he will be blocked and his edits reverted. Bmg916 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it appears that user was blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm going to leave it the way it is then, since no one else but the user who was blocked as a sockpuppet really opposes it. Bmg916 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 1995

What is your source that it was not the last PPV to use the classic WWF logo? The next PPV (WrestleMania XII) used the new generation logo. TJ Spyke 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was first introduced in 1994 (. It became the main logo around late 1994/early 1995 (I don't remember when exactly) and was the logo until they introduced the scratch logo in early 1998. TJ Spyke 02:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2008

I was looking at the edit history of this page and found this curious. You consider the WWE Title match (which has already been confirmed, with the winner of the Triple H/Jeff Hardy match at Armageddon getting a WWE Title match at RR) crystal balling, but don't consider the RR match (which has not been announced) crystal balling? TJ Spyke 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, the WWE title match has been announced and confirmed while the Rumble match has not. Yes the Rumble match will almost certainly happen, but matches only get added when they are announced. As for the logos, they are different logos. TJ Spyke 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: NWO

Read here. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Mshake3 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at WWE No Way Out‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You should watch out, because you've already violated it and someone (not me) might report you. -- Scorpion 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personnel attacks by LifeStroke420.) Sandstein (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No Way Out

It's NOT that simple. WP:PW consensus has changed. Indemand has been deemed a reliable source via the project. Please stop removing the match. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see THIS. D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

@LifeStroke, the sooner you accept that iND is as reliable a source as your seemingly prized WWE TV site, the better. ArcAngel (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Annoying user

I agree with you. Arcangel has some serious problems and sees everything as a reason for agruement. He may be a sockpuppet. Beastmix (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User Warnings

You do realise, that no matter how many times you decide to remove warnings that they are still viewable in the page history? On a side note, normally when you start a PPV article you should really complete it instead of "dumping it". D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "you haven't abandoned it"? You clearly have, you have yet to start the "Event" section, and haven't completed the "Background" section. If you start a PPV article, you should finish it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown: In Your House

Will you be editing this article any time soon? If not, it will be put up for grabs.--TrUCo31 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Starrcade 1994

If you click on the image (to go to the image page), you will see that it is the Starrcade 1994 cover. I don't know why it shows up as the BATB cover on the Starrcade page though, probably just an error. TJ Spyke 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I will look for an admin who is experienced with images. TJ Spyke 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps

Hey man, thanks for removing that bit about Booster Gold naming the corps. We were both on the same page about it on the discussion page, but I didn't want to get into an edit war over it, so I threw the fact tag on it. I'm still learning the ropes so I can apprehensive about editing, sometimes.  Hazardous Matt  15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV

Please do not call edits like this vandalism, and please do not revert to make a point. If you have a problem with how the article currently looks please discuss it on the talkpage instead of edit-warring on the article. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

TNA WHC history/NWA debate

This video was released before noon on May 13, 2007 hours before the TNA Sacrifice PPV went on the air. Nowhere in the official NWA announcement was it stated that TNA had the rights to the titles until midnight. This official announcement made it clear that Team 3D and Cage had been immediately stripped of their NWA Championships. Therefore the titles that were defended were interim TNA titles at the very least only represented by the NWA belts but they were NOT the NWA titles. Because of this the title reigns that began/ended during the period of time between the PPV and the Impact episode in which the TNA titles were officially introduced are by default considered unofficial TNA title reigns. Hope that clears up any confusion. -- bulletproof 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, because the NWA are the owners of the NWA titles, the announcement that was made BEFORE the event here was official and automatically overruled anything the TNA announcer said. If you actually did have the event on tape you would have seen the while Jeremy Borash did mistakenly announce Cage as the NWA champ, the graphics below his name only referred to him as the World Heavyweight Champion. The announcers through out the show even did the same and only referred to him as the World Heavyweight Champion, not even making mention of the NWA. This proves that while the title may not have been the official TNA title, it was at least an interim - unofficial TNA title. The NWA stripped both of their title holders HOURS before the show. This meant that going into the PPV whether TNA liked it or not, their champions where no longer NWA champions. Per WP:PW, we do not follow TNA retconning under any circumstance, as Misplaced Pages is an information database that follows facts as they occur and not as they are revisioned weeks after occurring.-- bulletproof 04:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WrestleMania XXIV. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. –LAX 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)