Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk | contribs) at 20:44, 26 April 2015 (→April 2015). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, RealDealBillMcNeal, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Mats Møller Dæhli. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mentoz86 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Brimstone

Great work on the Brimstone article. However I did remove the prod. While the article certainly reeked of puffery, I do think it meets the minimum notability requirements. Not the mention the fact it has survived two previous AfDs. In the very least I think it should go through the AfD process again if it is to be deleted.LM2000 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Brimstone (again)

I've started a sockpuppet investigation against the two who are reverting you. Their behavior is identical and leads me to believe they are the same person. If you have additional comments, leave them at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/RingWars2007. If I were you I wouldn't revert them again until the investigation is closed so that way you cannot be blamed for the edit war.LM2000 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Greetings.

Per all of this I thought I should tell you that there's a guideline article on this such behaviour. see this. I've suggested that the two be disciplined per this guideline if the SPI against them does not lead to blocks.

Y'all take care now. MM (Report findings) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Daniel Bryan Knee

Hey man, check out the section on Daniel Bryan's talk page about his move. I've put multiple sources where the same author refers to it as the Running Knee, and if nothing else, tell me how to source that episode of Smackdown properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found Misplaced Pages's policy about using Youtube as a source and will be relisting Running Knee with a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"David Beckham goes through initiation ceremony"

Instead of making less-than-helpful comments like "jog on", I suggest you give us some indication of why a footballer's initiation ceremony is at all encyclopaedic. All football clubs do it (or at least did it back in the day), so what's the big deal about David Beckham's? Is it just because it's him? I'm finding it difficult to justify including this info. – PeeJay 23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Peejay there is plenty of sources available in regards to David Beckham's initiation ceremony. Many soccer players have gone through this and so it's no big deal that David did as well. I see no reason why it shouldnt be included in the article. Like I said there are many sources for it so I have to agree with RealDeal and his edits. Caden 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You've basically just agreed with me. Many/most footballers do initiation ceremonies, so what's so special about this one? Granted this sounds like one of the more extreme ones, but I would be surprised if worse stuff had been done to other players and never gone reported in the media. This is pure tabloid bunkum. – PeeJay 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, before you force this into a massive edit war, let's have a proper discussion about the inclusion of the content. Per WP:BRD, the info should not be added again until the discussion reaches a conclusion. – PeeJay 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting me. Beckham admitted it on a documentary and there are many sources to back it up. Caden 17:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

How many of them have to sing a song or something inane, and how many had to masturbate over Clayton Blackmore? Spot the difference? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He's not going to care. He's interested in edit warring and taking ownership of the article. Caden 17:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? – PeeJay 18:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure doing something embarrassing like masturbating in public was pretty common back in the early 1990s. At my American football initiation in university, we made the rookies stand naked in a field while we pelted eggs at them. Sounds pretty similar. – PeeJay 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Peejay I've played soccer most of my life (high school/university) so I know what happens. Caden 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Masturbating in public was pretty common back in the early 1990s" - Prove it then. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		Awarded by LM2000 for your work on Brimstone (wrestler). For years countless users saw the problems with the article and looked away but you saw to improve it to Misplaced Pages Standards.LM2000 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Head or Heart Tour

Hello RealDealBillMcNeal. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Head or Heart Tour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs a citation

Please see the talk section of the History of WWE. Not every sentence is a statement of a fact needing a citation. If you read non-WWE related articles you'll quickly notice that there are many connecting sentences that lack citations simply because they do not need them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindumuninc (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR says you're wrong. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy problems

None of the reasons you gave for deletion of Historic matches of the Costa Rica national football team apply. It has context, is not one of the things for which A7 can be used , is not promotional, and is not total nonsense.

• Similarly for Mozida Govt. High School. -- it is not empty, it has context, it is not vandalism. ,
• Similarly, for ], it has context, and there is at least some reason to think the person of significance, though notability may be another matter.
• CK Morgan (Singer) had references at the time you marked it for deletion as an unreferenced BLP
• Most of the problems you indicated at Usul ash-Shashi do not apply either: it has sufficient citations, it does not use bare urls, it has links to other WP articles, it has nothing that seems to be a weasel word , I see no reason to think it a hoax, there is no point dividing so short an article into sections, I cannot see how it is promotional
• Similarly, Where Are You Going Moshé ? does not appear to use original research, does not need reorganization/. It may or may not be notable.
• There are some recent problems indicated on your page by other editors.

You must not continue in this manner. Not only are these wrong, they are in some cases so utterly inapplicable that it looks very much like tagging at random. Please read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy before you do any further tagging of articles for deletion. The previous edits you have been doing seem sensible enough,though there are some problems, like the one at Daily Mail. I can only think there were some difficulties of some sort in the last 24 hours. I will check again tomorrow. Im using my non-admin account at the moment. I am actually User:DGG and my talk is User talk:DGG 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded for your role in starting the ultimate removal of Brimstone from Misplaced Pages. Without your efforts, it could not have been done. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

kike

If you want to stop kikefolqn, you should ask for a ban. I had problems with kike in spanish and english wikipedia. He never listen. He does an edition and alllways changes your editions. I tried to talk with him, but he never answeres. He was banned sometimes and he never stop.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Kike did it again https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=WWE&curid=62676&diff=593012845&oldid=592892688 can you reported him for vandalism? I tried, but I don't know where. I tried and people is discussing about his name --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League hat-tricks

Hi there! I've wrote the article about UEFA Champions League hat-tricks in Ukrainian Wiki. When I was writting it, I found that Rodionov didn't make a hat-trick (UEFA.com shows it). On the other hand Semak in 2004/2005 season scored 3 goals in one match →. I hope it will help you.--TnoXX (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

vandalism

Hello, I'm Blood sliver. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mr. T because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Blood sliver (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Eurovision Song Contest 2014

If you think editing the name of the Netherlands' entry to one which is false is funny, stop it.

Don't think it wasn't caught because no one else was looking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingmelvin (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

THAT list

Each titles wiki page has the following Youngest, Heaviest, First, Current, Oldest, Lightest, Most reigns. Singling out one of these to add to the HISTORY of WWE is redundant. It's notable that rene young was the youngest tag champ but not on that page. MB1972 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at Malcolm Glazer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Misplaced Pages, as you did at Glazer ownership of Manchester United, you may be blocked from editing. --VeryCrocker (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah fella, what I wrote was the truth. It isn't vandalism to suggest that United fans are celebrating his death. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes fella, it is vandalism. Do NOT do it again or you will be blocked. You've been warned. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Good explanation of what constitutes vandalism. Great stuff to threaten somebody with being blocked rather than educate them. Superb work by a "veteran editor". RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are fair warnings by User:Lady Lotus. In no way are "Everybody had jelly and ice-cream." and "In 2014, Malcolm Glazer died much to the delight of Manchester United fans, who proceded to celebrate with jelly and ice-cream.", the latter referenced with a blog, encyclopedic-worthy. Especially after you have removed stuff that you considered "crap" and "awful". This edit just a month back is far from acceptable by an editor either. LRD NO (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr T Loves his mother, brother, there's no point in denying it. Making incorrect edits with regards to fan reaction does not equate to vandalism. Unencyclopaedic it may have been, but it's not too difficult to press a button to simply revert the edit rather than to threaten somebody with a ban from editing, without making any attempt whatsoever to explain the threat. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately making incorrect edits is vandalism. To quote VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages". Which you have undoubtedly done in the examples cited above and, for another example, here.

It's possible you're going to respond to this by further lawyering. Well, ok, lawyer away. But don't indulge in disruptive editing again. It won't end well for you. --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Those edits are clear-as-day vandalism. Bring it to any editor and they will say the same. If you think any disruptive editing can be defended with "press a button to simply revert the edit", my advice is to stay away from editing for a while and look at WP policies to see how they work before getting yourself into further trouble and a likely block. LRD NO (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

...Jesus Christ. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for removing material that reads like an advertisement. Chillum 07:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Luis Suárez

I think there should be at least two sources for each of the statements regarding the Suárez incident and suspension. Kingjeff (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, TV and PPV are different.

This would matter if we were saying "WWE Raw aired on cable, while Royal Rumble aired on PPV."

This would still be ambiguous, since it could mean they aired at the same time, but it's still alright (by some linguists) in the comparative sense.

Here, we're not contrasting, we're simply listing two HD things in chronological order. There's no "but" about it, and the sentence is clear they didn't happen concurrently. If we were being wordy at all, "and" or "then" or "and then" would be the words to use for the opposite of "difference".

As for "to be presented in HD", what does it add but wordiness? If we call something an "HD program", it's clear that it exists ("to be") and it was presented, as every TV program is. Whenever you see some sort of "be" by a verb in past tense, it can do without it. Neil Armstrong wasn't the first person "to be walking" on the moon.

If nothing else, that "to be" has to go. For 3RR reasons, I'll let the bigger problem slide, but I'm fixing this. I hope you don't have a problem with that part. And I hope some of this grammar stuff is getting through to you. Not trying to edit war with you, just helping a fellow editor out with the language, for Wiki's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

WWE Music Group edits

What was wrong with how it was before? There was nothing wrong with it. --Evil Yugi (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As I explained three times, it violates WP:IINFO. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. It had been that way for months, maybe years. Why change now haha --Evil Yugi (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a list collating the entire library of singles released to Itunes is an indiscriminate collection of information which Misplaced Pages is not. None of these songs has ever charted apart from Fandango's theme in the UK. Just because these songs has been released, doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but we can't all be on iTunes all the time bro. Surely we can work out something? --Evil Yugi (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, based on recent edits, I'm not the only one that feels this way. --Evil Yugi (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've yet to be told of any Misplaced Pages policy as to why it should stay. The reasons given have been absolutely pathetic. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If that was the case, then why wait over 3 years to remove it? --Evil Yugi (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take me three years to do it. I removed the text the first time I encountered the page. There was an article for a wrestler called Brimstone that went untouched for years before I removed the large amounts of guff and it finally got deleted. Length of time is not an argument. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I still see much more good for having it than negatives bro. --Evil Yugi (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's say the article is left alone the way you have it. How is anyone supposed to keep track of what's out there wrestling theme wise? We cannot access iTunes 24/7/365 to keep track, that's physically impossible. How do you suppose we fix this problem? Evil Yugi (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not an advertisement agency for WWE. Pretty sure Twitter exists. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not gonna give up are ya buddy? Evil Yugi (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not gonna give a valid reason are ya buddy? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you a few - WP:IAR, Lists of songs, and Category:Discographies. Now if need be this list can be moved to Category:Record_label_discographies and it can survive there along with the other few thousand listings of that sort.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR is used in instances where the rules are preventing improvement. How is a huge list of songs released by a record label an improvement?
Lists of songs features zero lists by record labels. WWE Music Group is a record label, not an artist. If you want to create a page that would be included in Category:Record_label_discographies called "WWE Music Group discography", sure go ahead. But come on, this list blatantly doesn't belong in the main article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

Edit-warring on Manchester United F.C. and List of Manchester United F.C. players

A reminder that another editor and you have been engaging in edit-warring on both pages, and that such actions could result in a block. Please try to reach consensus with each other on the article talk page before it escalates into administrator action. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-war where I continually try to improve it, with references, and the edits get reverted with terrible reasoning. One way war where I yet again get blamed. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

When this happens seek out more community input rather than repeatedly reverting. Even if you think the reasoning is terrible.

Our edit warring policy defines a revert as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Notice the "whole or in part" in there.

It seems you do not accept this definition and it has been brought up in at least 1 of your prior 3 edit warring blocks. Please seek further community input when you cannot come to an agreement with someone rather than reverting their edits in whole or in part. Chillum 04:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Whilst you and the other editor are both clearly edit warring, edits such as this appear petty and not in your favour. Please discuss this on the article in questions talk page before making further reverts. This is an encyclopaedia and not a play thing. Any further reverts may lead to a report and another block which I'm sure you don't want.Blethering Scot 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it an edit-war if both sides come to the same agreement, no matter how ludicrous or preposterous or asinine i.e. everything that happens in football is a "quirk of timing"? This is the consensus that was reached following the BRD cycle. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You never reached any consensus or you wouldn't be reverting each other. Your argument is flawed, there clearly wasn't any consensus.Blethering Scot 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The consensus was that everything that happens in football is a "quirk of timing". This was his opinion on everything and I agreed. There is no flaw, that is consensus. That's how it works when only two people are commenting on the matter, presumably. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ray Traylor and Virgil

Recent Death listings are under their article name (assumed to be the common name). At the time Boss Man died, the article was called Ray Traylor. Until last August, even.

When Virgil dies, he'll be Virgil.

It's not terrible, just clarifying. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:46, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Stop your vandalism during deletion suggestion process

Please stop removing inlined references to Danièle Watts. Clearly, you are trying to make the page look worse to win the deletion process.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Those sources are clearly about the thing that made her famous. If the section detailing the thing that made her famous is removed, then so should the sources. Stop being such a presumptuous arse. This, and the thing where you accused somebody of RACISM. Get a grip. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your protection request

Hello RealDealBillMcNeal. Please see my closure here. I've seen problems with intraday updates of scores before, but you need to have a consensus from somewhere. You can't just tell people what to do in the hidden text of the article and then assume it will be obeyed. At least put something on the talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for Talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers#A note about Matchday Updating. That is something people should be able to understand. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ronaldo

Why you change ronalo's goals he had scored a goal yesterday agiant basel !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se killer (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This is already explained in the editing area of the article. The matchday isn't over and it is important to be careful that all edits are correct. Edits are being made which are wholly incorrect. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Hello. If I see any more I will block you without further warning. Thanks. -- zzuuzz 19:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It was on Pete's radio show, pal. The radio wouldn't lie to me would it? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The naughtiest left-back around town

You do some good edits, and then you go and create an article like this. You've been warned before for your vandalism - please consider this a final warning. If I see anything like that again you will be indefinitely blocked from editing. GiantSnowman 07:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's his nickname. Guardian, Liverpool Echo, Everton's Official Twitter. Pipe down. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's vandalism. GiantSnowman 16:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's his nickname; I've literally just given you three reliable sources, including his own club's official Twitter account, which all confirm that it is his nickname. It's not vandalism, at worst it's a very minor inconvenience. Bore off. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And that's suitable for an encyclopedia how? Please, continue with this attitude, it is only helping you.</sarcasm> GiantSnowman 17:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not reading every single Misplaced Pages guideline to discover whether or not a nickname could be used as a redirect. Thanks for your help with the matter! Glad you could be of service to me in this massively important situation! It's not like you couldn't have just deleted the article and said "please don't create this article, it simply isn't necessary", no, you had to accuse me of vandalism and threaten me with a ban! Absolutely ludicrous. Such weirdly aggressive behaviour. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed this on the watchlists of Mr. McNeal, @LRD NO: and @GiantSnowman:, I thought I would give my 2 cents.

My first instinct was to agree with GS as it seemed the reasonable point of view. However when I read up on Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects it specifically mentions that it is appropriate to redirect a non-neutral title for an article if it has several media mentions:

In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

and

The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Misplaced Pages in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Misplaced Pages article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy.

It goes on to say:

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3.

I don't think this is an obvious case. What needs to be determined is if this nickname is established and likely to be useful. My personal opinion given the sources and the results of a google search is that people may look for the article by that name.

In such cases it may be helpful to make an explanation on the talk page of the redirect with sources and a link to Misplaced Pages:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects. I had never heard of this myself so I imagine a lot of people don't know about it. Chillum 18:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: we now have BLP-violating redirects like Dozy Antiscore. Any reason why I shouldn't block? GiantSnowman 09:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It does seem that Bill is trying to test the limits of what is acceptable. I think you are within your discretion here. Chillum 18:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Redirects should be limited to commonly-used names such as footballing names or the typical first/last names. Mention of a nickname, particularly those of a disparaging, over a line or two should not justify a redirect.

We do not want a situation where we encourage editors to use inappropriate nicknames to the downright ridiculous as redirects, such as:

• God
• Judas
• Furious Fergie
• Psycho
• Third Lung
• Goldenballs
• Sicknote

This is an encyclopedia. We do not want to lend credence to inappropriate search terms that suggest, for example, that Stuart Pearce is psychotic or Leighton Baines is 'naughty' to the average reader. LRD 12:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL at the desperation for political correctness in an encyclopaedia. The redirect was a commonly used name, hence me making it! RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

GiantSnowman his edit wasn't vandalism. As you know, Misplaced Pages has a definition of Vandalism, and his edit didn't meet that definition, so please strike that. (Also note, you don't seem to have anyone else that supports your claim of Vandalism either). Second, he has references supporting his edit (Yes, I know twitter is not a reliable source, I meant the other two sources :) ) so it's not fan cruft nor is it someone with an axe to grind. Just calm down, talk it out, and don't threaten with blocks, this isn't a block worthy offense (check my block log, I know a thing or two about being blocked. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Champions Leauge all-time top scorers tables

Why have you decided to make such a drastic change by deleting one of the tables without discussing it in the talk page first? You even removed the "including/excluding qualifying rounds" line so visitors won't even know whether it includes goals scored in those rounds or not. Feudonym (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Because it's the right change to make. There is no need for two inconsistent tables, and there is no need to include goals in qualifiers. The hint is in the name qualifiers - they aren't part of the actual tournament. One table detailing the all time top 10 goalscorers with a link to the main page is blatantly enough. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sporting Lisbon

WP:COMMONNAME states that

Names are often used as article titles - such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title. Misplaced Pages prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Misplaced Pages short cut term: "COMMONNAME".

Which is why we have page names such as San Siro (instead of Stadio Giuseppe Meazza), Red Star Belgrade (FK Crvena Zvezda) and Sporting Lisbon (Sporting Clube de Portugal), which has been used in the English media such as the BBC, The Guardian, ESPN FC and The Telegraph. LRD 02:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The page name actually isn't Sporting Lisbon, it's Sporting Clube de Portugal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA states that consistency is one of the five components of a good article title (specifically that "the title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles"). RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Both Sporting CP, Sporting and Sporting Lisbon are accepted naming variations of the same club, and none should be deleted without due reason. Same way that the English media refer to Bayern München as Bayern Munich, and Internazionale as Inter Milan, and synonyms are bolded in the OPENPARA per MOS:BOLD. Consistency in WP:NAMING CRITERIA applies in the use of F.C./FC and equivalent in football club pages. LRD 05:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving articles

Hi RealDeal, could you in the future not resort to "uncontroversial technical requests" for moving wrestler articles which could be disputed (such as Sami Zayn) - please use a full requested move discussion so others can weigh in on the subject. "Uncontroversial technical requests" are usually for articles with mistakes in their titles. Moving between ring names is disputable and this controversial. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There's literally nothing controversial about applying WP:COMMONNAME. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 03:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Google Search counts can be inflated. There are arguments for using El Generico, longevity of nine to ten years, international exposure in Japan including winning the top title in DDT as well as in Germany including winning the top title in wXw, has appeared on television via Ring of Honor, Evolve, and Dragon Gate Japan. In the end these values might be inferior to Sami Zayn, but to move the page without discussion is just dismissing them as trivial when not everyone might think so. Misplaced Pages is a collaborative effort. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 14:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

So a couple of indies and a tertiary Japanese promotion trump two years of WWE exposure. Right. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Roman Reigns

How are the Rock and Roman Reigns not related they are cousins to Umaga Rosy and the Usos the Anoi family page even states so.

No it doesn't and no they aren't. To be actual cousins, you need to have an actual blood relative. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Rosey is Roman's brother there for they are related to the Rock, Rikishi Yokozuna Umaga and the Usos.

The Rock isn't a blood relation of any of the Anoai family. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not true Bill, see their family tree. Their grandfathers were brothers.LM2000 (talk) 23:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The one that says "blood brothers", which, as everybody knows, does not actually mean blood relation. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

All sources I've seen have called Rock and Roman "cousins", "blood brother" could mean either but I took it for granted that there was some blood relation considering how hyped up the relations between the Anoais seems to be. I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out who is right for sure until I come across a source which is more specific but it seems that you are correct.LM2000 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Quit complaining and watch the product

Keep blocking and snitching, I will just keep fixing your biased opinions on the article. Have you even read what I contributed? You leave out so much valuable information and complain because I added time periods. You're such a crybaby, I get if you're upset about the time periods and while they're not acknowledged on a regular basis, they are time periods with certain names, not just "Brand Extension". Keep whining, you can't win and if you somehow manage to block my edits, since I'm not a wiki expert, then you're just a wimp. A tattling, coward, wimp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelrick123 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Truce?

I once again rightfully edited the article however I removed the titles and simply stuck to the years. The fact that for example "The Launch of NXT" is about a paragraph of NXT, then jumps from WWE 2010-present clearly does not qualify under "The Launch of NXT" whereas the Return of ECW and Money in the Bank paragraphs are soley based on their titles. I beg you to read what I contributed (that you had missed) and see for yourself. I don't know how to add sources but many of my contributions came from watching the product and hearing the on-screen events take place. If you'd like to source them go right ahead, but I will keep adding them back if deleted, as I want others to see missing information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebelrick123 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Marwan Koukash

Hello there. I've protected the article for three days in its current revision since the subject did state his own birthplace as "Palestine" in the cited biography. However, I'm afraid I must also issue this as your only warning that you'll be blocked if you continue to refer other editors' edits as "fascist". Please be considerate to other editors in your work and show civility, thanks! Deryck C. 14:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Swarm... 20:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Fanny. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this as a sign you don't intend to use your talk page for appropriate reasons during the duration of your block, and also that you continue to flagrantly disregard our no personal attacks policy. As such, I'm modifying your block to last one week, without talk page access. Note that this is not a punishment; it's based on your demonstrated disregard for the original block, as it convinces me it will not be effective in preventing continued disruption. I chose to be lenient and not factor in your previous blocks or personal attacks, but obviously that was not the right choice. Swarm 22:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

• See your block log for a more detailed explanation of the block. Swarm 17:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Imagine defending a professional paedophile-enabler? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)