User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brain Age 2

Consistency over provided logic is not a good idea. The first game's article was given NA preference because it came there first, but now when it comes in Europe first, it should be given the same logic. On top of that, they are bringing it to the EU first because the game was far more popular in Europe than in NA - if you observe many of the top lists in the various European regions, Brain Age is a contender in most of them, and is one of the top selling DS games in Europe - it's number two behind Nintendogs and in front of New Super Mario Bros. The NA version, however, is far behind - at last check, Brain Age = 1.3 million, Brain Training = 2 million (about two or three months ago). Iwata made it a point to criticize NoA because Brain Age was selling 10,000 copies per week on average, while Brain Training was doing 30,000 copies per week on average - so in a four week month, that's 40,000 versus 120,000. Consistency shouldn't get in the way of hard evidence; the Brain Age series is most popular in Japan, followed by Europe/Australia, and then North America. It's only fair to represent the series and the games in it as such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ten steps ahead of you; WT:VG. Also, that argument could be used for any title, that because the population is greater, it should be expected and it's nothing special. But it is - despite the population difference, the gaming industry is bigger in NA. Overall, both the DS and Brain Training are not only doing unprecedented numbers for most games/systems in Europe, but Europe contributes more sales figures to both of them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There does not seem to be any dispute over the usage of the EU title based on the discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Judgment Day Dark match

source Bencey 19:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Template talk:Unreferenced

Posted a response to your question at Template talk:Unreferenced. Jeepday (talk) 01:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario edits

What exactly are you fixing? As far as I can tell, you're mostly removing spaces between parameters, which causes the lines to break awkwardly, making it harder to edit. Am I missing something? Pagrashtak 03:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just that, I am reducing the white spaces. I don't know what you are talking about as far as line breaks though, because i'm not seeing any problems on my end. TJ Spyke 05:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
White spaces between parameters are good! Here's an example of how the lines break for me without white spaces:
|released=<sup><small>[[North America|NA]]</small></sup> [[April 9]] [[2007]]<ref>{{cite 
web|title=Super Paper
Mario|publisher=Nintendo|url=http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=_bua93nkRXBBWiJ8ulRPXASuK0xbcL8l|accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><br
/><sup><small>[[Japan|JPN]]</small></sup> [[April 19]] [[2007]]<ref>{{cite 
web|first=Patrick|last=Klepek| title=Nintendo Japan Outlines 2007 DS, Wii 
Schedule|publisher=1UP|date=[[2007-02-21]]|url=http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157360|accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref>
and with:
|released=<sup><small>[[North America|NA]]</small></sup> [[April 9]], [[2007]]<ref>{{cite web | 
title=Super Paper Mario | publisher=Nintendo | 
url=http://www.nintendo.com/gamemini?gameid=_bua93nkRXBBWiJ8ulRPXASuK0xbcL8l | 
accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref><br /><sup><small>[[Japan|JPN]]</small></sup> [[April 19]], 
[[2007]]<ref>{{cite web | first=Patrick |last=Klepek | title=Nintendo Japan Outlines 2007 DS, Wii 
Schedule | publisher=1UP | date=[[2007-02-21]] | url=http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3157360 | 
accessdate=2007-05-23}}</ref>
The white spaces separate the parameters, making them easier to read. Note that without the spaces, the lines sometimes break in the middle of a <br /> tag, a title like Super Paper Mario, or other awkward places. In addition, the lack of spaces make the lines so long I have to scroll to read them, which is not necessary in the second example. It makes editing much more cumbersome. Do you see why I prefer the spaces? Pagrashtak 12:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you seemed to show why reducing white spaces are good. Those big gaping spaces stick out like a sore thumb, and in my experience don't make it easier or harder to edit. Also, I am not seeing those "problems" on my end. TJ Spyke 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
You're telling me you actually prefer the first example? Since removing the white spaces doesn't make it easier for you, but makes in harder for me, can we please leave them? Pagrashtak 21:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PPV's

How? - Deep Shadow 00:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason I decided to do that was because I saw it already in a few other pages. So I thought it was supposed to be that way. Also the fact that shows like RAW and SmackDown! have italics and that just helped to convince me. I read WP:PW and saw no mention about how PPV's should be written. Maybe it should be included for reasons like this.
Sorry for the inconvenience but it's not like I'm a vandal. I never intentionally meant to "screw" things up as you so succinctly put it. Also, I don't think all my changes were bad and didn't need to be completely reverted. I will go back and make the same changes I did before, minus the italics. - Deep Shadow 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

I was wondering if it seems appropriate to split the article into several sections, each covering certain SNMEs (ex: 1-10, 11-20, etc.)

If not, would it be possible to help "improve" the results by making it look like what other result pages are. For example on SNME 1:

May 11, 1985 (taped May 10, 1985) - Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum - Long Island, New York

I'm just saying it would be good to improve the article to make it look good. Please help if you can. WWEtemplater 03:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to my user page

Hi TJ Spyke. While I appreciate your good intentions with this edit, both the links redirected to their intended targets anyway so I don't see a need to change it. I don't mean to sound all protective of my userpage, but your edit seemed unnecessary. Hammer Raccoon 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They did go to the right page before though... and originally you did change how it looked on my page. Its not a big thing, but there's nothing wrong with redirects y'know. Hammer Raccoon 22:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a guideline? The Manual of Style is just a guideline as well y'know. My only concern is that time spent "fixing" redirects that aren't broken is time wasted that could be better spent contributing to the project. To quote from that guideline, "In particular, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." Hammer Raccoon 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't really know how else to say this. I mean, I'm seriously confused as to how avoiding redirects "looks better". To who? People who edit my page? If anything, [[redirect]] looks better than [[target|redirect]] - less clutter. Regardless, as I have said before, the guidelines give absolutely no reason to do this. Further, I think after I reverted your first edit, it would have been decent of you to leave the page as it was. If nothing I have said so far has changed your mind, then I guess there's no point continuing this. I just hope you reconsider making pointless edits for the sake of. Hammer Raccoon 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You know those trolls from the Mania III article?

Well I found them. [1] And boy do they hate us (Mostly me because their trolling, nonsense, theories, speculations, original research, and vandalism gets reverted XD), but still... The last thing Wikipedia needs right now are bunch a net trolls flaming the project. I've been dealing with two users from the board on the Big Gold Belt article that keep adding the same crap that they're mad at me for removing. Do you believe the Big Gold Belt was believed to been crafted by a cowboy belt buckle maker out of Reno, Nevada? I thought so... Do you think this OR warning is "bogus" when no source was provided? Thought so too. These trolls are getting on my nerves now. Not that I'm not used to dealing with trolls like these before (i.e. User:Big foot123456789, User:JB196 <- the guy who's been making all these troll come here, User:Jrapidfire, User:Wiki-star) but one troll a month is one too many for me. -- bulletproof 3:16 05:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha. Kind funny that we have at least a little internet fame, some users on a messageboard complaining about us and our edits. Just for fun, I registeres there and will post a reply once my account gets apporved (you should do the same thing). TJ Spyke 06:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I'm definitely signing up now!-- bulletproof 3:16 15:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... I think we should bring an Admin into this... [2] [3].-- bulletproof 3:16 20:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well TJ, I replied on Big Gold Belt's talk page. Read my reply, see if you can add anything else. Its a long read though. -- bulletproof 3:16 08:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... this argument seems to be getting nowhere. I have informed Lord Deskana of this dispute. Hopefully they'll listen to an admin. Could you also leave a comment on the talk page? I don't want them thinking that its just me that has a problem with their edits. -- bulletproof 3:16 17:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the JB196 meatpuppets got indef blocked. Anyways I just wanted to ask if you've registered on their forum yet? -- bulletproof 3:16 02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've registered, but I don't think i've been approved yet because when I tried to reply it said I wasn't allowed too. TJ Spyke 03:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I registered too. It usually takes about 2 days for an account to be approved so by tomorrow we should be able to reply. -- bulletproof 3:16 03:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Team Madness

Can anything be done with this at all? I already prodded it once in its current state but it's back. If it can be expanded beyond it's current rather pointless state please do so, otherwise AfD is the best option. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 16:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sonic the Hedgehog (character)

Please note that we don't care about the trademark. Per Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles, Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games). Also per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles ("a", "an", "the") and prepositions and conjunctions (e.g., "to", "from", "and") unless they begin the title. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be. Hope that clarifies the matter. -- ReyBrujo 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Only that "Alan" is a proper name, while "The" is not. If we consider "The" as a proper name (which is not), then we would be following the trademark owner desires. I suggest you to look for consensus at WP:CVG before doing something that will bring plenty of reverts (as you can see, someone else before had already moved the article from "The" to "the" citing naming convention). I also suggest you to check what the people at WP:NAME think about considering "The" as a proper name because of a trademark. -- ReyBrujo 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As I told to the user I reverted in Xbox Live, the guideline has an exception for trademarks beginning with a lower case, see here. And, as I told the user, the guideline may be favoring Apple and discriminating Microsoft, but it is a guideline and unless you tell them to include exceptions for trademarks in capital letters, "Xbox LIVE" is not acceptable. -- ReyBrujo 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... sorry for that, I thought you added the reply about Xbox LIVE, but I just noticed you only deleted the unnecessary spaces. Reading comprehension for the loss :-( -- ReyBrujo 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Pena

What is the big deal about Michael Pena on the RAW GM list?

There have been over a dozen times where someone was made GM for the day.

If it's the honorary thing that's bugging you, I don't know why it should.

Pena came in and got to make decisions and even overrode Coach, who made one match for Backlash, when Pena came out and overruled him.

Pena deserves to be put in the list because he did impact RAW with his rulings as DX or The Spirit Squad did when they ran the show. Ohgltxg 20:13 May 26, 2007 (UTC)

He wasn't really GM. Honorary GM is not the same thing as actually being GM. The Spirit Squad were made actual GMs for the night. TJ Spyke 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WII Link

If the rest of the external links are going to stay the other links are staying. I do not agree of having the external links without the others. Please discussed in the talk page but until we should delete all the pages. Please read the rules of external links if you don't understand have an admin explain to you. 

--alfiboy 00:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for revert-warring at Wii for a period of forty-eight hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You have blocked for revert-warring multiple times and you have reverted seven times in the past twenty-four hours (four in twenty minutes), so your block is longer than the standard twenty-four hours. -- tariqabjotu 01:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; this was on the fine line between 3RR and reverting vandalism, so this was a bit too close to call. Please, for future reference, note though that it is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself. -- tariqabjotu 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I honestly didn't think I was doing anything wrong. TJ Spyke 02:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR; "new messages" banner

I was the administrator who opined that your 3RR block might have been better as a warning, and when I saw that that section on ANI had been marked as "resolved," I came here to investigate. When I did, I got caught by your "practical joke" messages banner. I ask that you please consider removing this from your talkpage at this point. Although these banners have not been strictly forbidden, a consensus has emerged that by this point they are (i) inconsiderate of people's time, and (ii) old-hat and no longer funny.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Newyorkbrad 02:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I was getting a little bored with it anyways. Thank you for helping me. TJ Spyke 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you as well, and happy editing. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Saying I'm complaining isn't needed at all. I have every right to continue against the points not being listed. The edit by Nishkid clearly states this. He also clearly stated the poll doesn't control the article. Because I don't agree with something, doesn't give you the right to be uncivil and say I'm complaining. RobJ1981 04:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Complaining=Expressing displeasure. Technically it's correct, you are expressing displeasure about Wii Points being listed. I am not trying to be rude, even though you continue to bring this issue up over and over and over, ad nauseum. TJ Spyke 04:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 22 28 May 2007 About the Signpost
Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule" News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. McMahon

Mr. McMahon is his Ring Name. See all this links:

  • [4] McMahon Momentum: "ECW World Champion Mr. McMahon and challenger Bobby Lashley weighed in on their One Night Stand Street Fight on ECW on Sci Fi".
  • [5] ECW Champion Mr. McMahon.
  • [6] The picture.
    • DON'T CROSS THE BOSS: "Following in the footsteps of his father and grandfather, Vincent Kennedy McMahon (or Mr. McMahon, to you) is the Chairman of WWE and quite possibly the most influential man in sports-entertainment history". (Both Names)
    • MEET MY SON SHANE: "The only son of Mr. McMahon, Shane McMahon has been bred for success since birth. But don't let his pedigree deceive you; Shane-o-Mac is always willing to back up everything he says and fight for what he wants".
    • No Chance, that's what you've go: "If anything is always true in WWE, it's the opening lyrics of Mr. McMahon's entrance theme. You can download "No Chance in Hell" from iTunes as part of the WWE Anthology album".
    • The Executive Assistant: "As Mr. McMahon's Executive Assistant, Jonathan Coachman does whatever it takes to help the WWE Chairman rule Raw".
    • Fighting Chairman: "Watch Mr. McMahon vs. Undertaker on WWE 24/7 Online".
    • Golden Chairman: "Mr. McMahon won the WWE Championship in Sept. 1999".
  • [7] Name: Mr. McMahon
  • [8] 3 times Mr. McMahon, 0 times Vince Mcmahon.
  • [9] Extreme Street Fight: Will Bobby Lashley finally regain the ECW World Title from Mr. McMahon. Matches: ECW World Champion Mr. McMahon vs. Bobby Lashley (Street Fight)
  • [10] One more time.
  • [11]
    • Bobby Lashley held the ECW World Title aloft at Judgment Day, seemingly reclaiming the championship lost to the triumvirate of Umaga, Shane and Mr. McMahon one month earlier.
    • But then, his newfound gold was ripped away by the Chairman on a technicality. Lashley hadn’t pinned the champion. Therefore, the title was to stay in Mr. McMahon’s well-manicured hands.
    • But who knows what (or whom) the former ECW champion might have up his sleeve to counter Mr. McMahon’s devious devices? We’ll find out June 3 at One Night Stand.

Finally, only put Mr. McMahon. --KingOfDX 04:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Why Vince McMahon? Why not Mr. McMahon?. In the match preview they call Vince as Mr. McMahon. No more discussions. For first time ever I have sources, and you understimate my sources?. --KingOfDX 04:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Only I thing Mr. McMahon is heel, and Vince McMahon face. What do you thing about?. Who is better?. What is the final resolution? Mr. McMahon? Vince McMahon? (or Mr. Vince McMahon?). --KingOfDX 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

WWE

Sorry Spyke, no hurt feelings over the poster/"script" stuff. I was wondering if you could help me get started with the Pro Wrestling Project. Iv been a fan since 1996 and hope to join this project and help it get better Thanx. gravediggerfuneral

WWEUNDERTAKER

Hey this is WWEUNDERTAKER saying thanks for letting me know I know its kinda down the road, but I've been busy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WWEUNDERTAKER (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 24 11 June 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?" News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back

You missed a lot of chaos man! After the McMahon Limo thing aired on RAW, HUNDREDS of marks clogged the Vince McMahon history page with this crap... sigh... Anyway, glad you're back.-- bulletproof 3:16 23:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I came on here Monday night (even though I couldn't edit) because I thought something like that wouldn't happen. WWE, making things harder for us sometimes. TJ Spyke 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Tell me about it. Since that thing aired IPs have been adding Vince's "death" date to Deaths in 2007.-- bulletproof 3:16 23:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "marks" in an edit summary

Wikipedia isn't perfect, settle down already and stop insulting people by calling them that. Revert the edits and report them when needed. Calling them names isn't the answer. Even if the editors are indeed marks and don't know better: that doesn't give you the right to use abusive edit summaries towards them. RobJ1981 05:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to insult the person. TJ Spyke 05:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance

Didn't see you had uploaded another one. Yamla deleted it becuase that Adam kid that got indef blocked today had uploaded another image over yours.-- bulletproof 3:16 21:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I wish Yamla had just deleted his image, making me re-upload the pic (luckily I still had the Vengeance poster saved on my PC). TJ Spyke 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your response

Nice Copy and Paste there buddy. Mshake3 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What? Your made a personal attack, so I used a warning template. Try taking a look at WP:UTM for templates. TJ Spyke 03:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Burntsauce

I have no idea why he was an admin, I guess he always just came across as one. Why is it that these pages that he stubs are being protected over minor edit wars so that references can't be added? It seems to me that it's a form of trolling. -- Scorpion0422 12:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Slammiverary

A simple "I disagree with your edit" would have worked, instead of some generic template that's not even close to the point. If this is your attempt at being an admin, you're failing big time. Mshake3 20:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, at least you think all nine matches should be listed on the Vengeance page. Otherwise I'd be electronically strangling you right now. Mshake3 20:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to http://www.tnawrestling.com/news/fullnews2.php?all=1400. It states that Abyss vs. Tomko is on so stop tell me I am vandalizing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Richard (talk • contribs)

I never said you were vandalizing, just that you weren't providing a source for the match (which is required). Also, removing warnings from your talkpage when they are legit (like mine were) is a frowned upon practice. TJ Spyke 21:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 02

http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/7641/dsc00064ig2.jpg

Cheers. Mshake3 20:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

VC NA

Hey, what's up?? How come I nver see you edit in the VC NA article anymore? Did something happen??? Neo Samus 19:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I was blocked for a week, and only got back yesterday. TJ Spyke 21:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Why the heck did you get blocked? is it for the edit warring on VC? Neo Samus 14:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It was because someone kept adding a non-notable point to the WWE One Night Stand article. Instead of just reporting them, I kept removing it myself. TJ Spyke 22:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
That sucks. Sorry to hear that. At least you are back now. I hate vandals, drive me nuts. Do you think what RobJ and the other did to the VC site would be considered Vandelism? Since there was never a consensus made on the issue, and still hasn't to this day? Speaking of RobJ, I have this feeling he is breaking a rule somewhere but I can't figure it out..... Oh one more question, is there anyway of talking to other users without others seeing what you posted to that person? Thanks again TJ. Neo Samus 01:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish it was vandalism (since then we could just revert it). If we want points back in, we would have to get a consensus to put them back in. There is no way to stop others from seeing what you write here, you have to e-mail them or use some other outside service (IM, a messageboard, etc.). TJ Spyke 03:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyway I can contact you outside of Wikipedia? Neo Samus 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have registered my e-mail address, so you can e-mail me (using the "E-mail this user" button on the left). I do have MSN, but I rarely use it. TJ Spyke 22:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I fell so stupid asking all these questions....sorry about that. I'm guessing you don't have an AIM account then? Cause I don't use MSN. :( Neo Samus 05:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Haven't had an AIM account for about 7 years. I could get one, but I barely even use MSN and mainly got it because most of my friends use it. TJ Spyke 05:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. Don't worry about getting an AIM if you are just going to chat with me. That would be pointless. I did send you an e-mail though. When you have a chance to read it that would be great....yeah(sorry got Office Space on the brain.) Neo Samus 05:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

and

you should note that i am NOT wrong that song was used for backlash. It was never used for mania. The site is wrong.TheManWhoLaughs 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Its not a legit warning its harrassment. the song was never on mania i have watched it several times you are wrong.TheManWhoLaughs 05:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well i dont care if you like it or not it is harrassment. you are a troll. and further more the site IS wrong that song was not used at mania. but since this is wikipedia and most of the information on here i wrong im not gonna get banned for reverting something so stupid.TheManWhoLaughs 05:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Look "pal", and i use the term loosely, WWE.com is wrong on this im telling you i know for a fact. And as far as you harrassing me and giving me "legit" warnings youre just trying to feed youre own ego. Pathetic IMO. TheManWhoLaughs 13:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember that troll that kept on using socks to add nonsense about WWE and Bratz?

Reason why Wrestling News Sites CANNOT be trusted on Wikipedia? Because Wrestling News Sites trust Wikipedia... See this "Update" on WWE Films ... Good God! Friggin' Doctor trolls...-- bulletproof 3:16 04:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

At least it's not on one of the more respected wrestling sites. I never even heard of this site before. TJ Spyke 05:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes trolls can be annoying. I'll keep an eye on his contribs.-- bulletproof 3:16 05:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

PCW

All the related articles are now grouped, if you want to change your Delete to Delete All. Darrenhusted 12:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Request your comments

I created a proposal. Please comment here.

Note: Please analyze each proposal on their own validity - do not reject a proposal just because you rejected a different one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance

Sorry.. I didn't know actually. I just figured since they said it on TV and since there will be a match for it, it should be on there. I don't even know why I put it on there, everything I ever do on here gets deleted by someone.-- FPAtl (holla, holla, holla) 02:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not true (about everything being deleted). I am just trying to help keep things consistant. In the past when there have been #1 contender matches, we kept the opponent listed as "TBD" until the match was over, so it makes sense to do the same here. TJ Spyke 02:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Wii

I just put it there as the word comes from a Japanese term. Remove it if you deem necessary. Cheers. Chris 07:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 25 18 June 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants" Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance

I have my opinion about how an article should be created, just as you do, and I feel that the current policies set by the project, not the site, are terrible. Mshake3 01:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

NEW YORK CITY MEET UP!!

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC
--David Shankbone 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance

Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

The article contains two links to "Nintendo Wii" when it should be Wii. Would you mind fixing that? Just64helpin 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nintendo Wii" seems to have popped up in Mario as well. Just64helpin 03:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ice Age 2 Wii.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ice Age 2 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Magical Starsign.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Magical Starsign.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment

This might not sound the nicest (but frankly being nice with you is very difficult to do, when you act so rudely because I disagree with you). Just leave me the hell alone. You don't have any right to point out every little "mistake" you claim I've made in discussions (just to sway the discussion to your side or whatever the case might be). I admit I've made mistakes: but a good percent of your claims aren't very true. I don't constantly go around posting your mistakes, so I see no reason why you have the right to do it. As you already know: post about content, not contributors (yes I know: I don't do that as much as I should either, but frankly I have the right to defend myself). I refuse to (and shouldn't have to) agree with you about article content, to make you happy so you stop this behaviour. Talk about the article content, instead of bashing me and bringing up my name all the time, it's not very difficult to do. RobJ1981 06:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WWE RAW.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WWE RAW.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WrestlePalooza98.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:WrestlePalooza98.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

HaHaHaHaHa

The 3RR went stale!!!!! Starwarsrulez 21:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Only because you didn't edit for about 2 days. Since it was your first time, it probably would have just been a 24 hour block anyways. TJ Spyke 02:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

I'm going to need help for something. I feel that I can trust you and I know that you can help me.Anyway,how did you put those boxes/templates(?) in your main page? like "This person is a fan of the mario series" also if you want to i have a couple of questions in my talk page but you dont have to look/answer them. Thanx Urena198 20:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Uncensored_99.gif

I have tagged Image:Uncensored_99.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Uncensored_97.jpg

I have tagged Image:Uncensored_97.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Backlash

Fine, whatever. Just answer some of those questions I asked please, and I'll consent. Wwefan980 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw your edit change, thanks for answering. I don't agree, but I shall leave it alone. Is there at least a link that links to the official results on the wwe site on the backlash page? Wwefan980 01:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the page in the external links section is the official Backlash page at wwe.com, WWE has pictures and results for every Backlash event. TJ Spyke 01:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness. I'll be sure to ask if I have other questions. And by the way, there are many people editing the wrestling articles that can't even spell and are jerks about edits. You are not like this, that's appreciated. Yet again, thanks. Perhaps I'll talk to you again. Wwefan980 01:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Trace Memory

I would like to get your comment on this, since you have opposed most moves I proposed. I have established that the article was initially titled Another, and the name used in the article was Another Code - Trace Memory was added at a later date, with the reasoning for it not including that the original title was unstable or inaccurate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also Spyke, note my comments in the talk page, citing the fact that the earliest significant contribution, supported by MoS, was titled "Trace Memory". Bladestorm 21:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
When you show me what the definition of a major contributor is (NOT "significant contributions" - if you're going to cite MoS, READ IT FOR ONCE), then you can argue it. Until then, I'll use the argument that you've been clinging to constantly - "which title was used first"? A STABLE title, Another Code: Two Memories, was replaced for NO REASON. Under your logic, I should revert that move because there exists no reason to change the title from a stable title for no reason. If there wasn't a reason to move it to Trace Memory in the first place, then the move shouldn't have been made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
? That doesn't even make sense.
The 'stable version' text is intended specifically to prevent people from groping through an article's history to try to an excuse to perform a move. The current 'stable version' is "Trace Memory". That's the point of stability. Not changing an article without due cause; not as a justification to make a change because of a possible mistake two years ago.
And I never stated that one should go with absolute first title used. I said to go with the first significant contribution (I can phrase it with synonyms if I like. Don't imply I haven't read a page that I've both linked and quoted to you). The first version of the article that was more than about a (small) paragraph used Trace Memory. The first version that wasn't classified as a 'stub' was Trace Memory. The most recent stable version of the article was Trace Memory. MoS mandates Trace Memory, in the absence of consensus to change.
But, anyways Spyke, have a look at the discussion there. Sorry for filling up your talk page. Bladestorm 21:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
...Okay, no. I'm sorry, but the length of the article has NOTHING to do with the title. When it was Another, it was being developed. Development IS a major contribution. Just because it developed after someone made an improper move does not mean that the earliest contributions were less significant. The earliest significant contributions cannot be determined by anyone. The video game AND the Wikipedia article both started as Another Code, and was changed because of a North American bias. If one can change an article which is already stable for no reason, then I should be able to change the article back - not only because I actually have a reason, but also because I'm reverting a move made without any good reason whatsoever. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you would take "major contributor" to mean, if all contributions (and thus contributors) are to be treated as 'major'. That said, that should probably be the cornerstone of your argument. Though, again, the 'stable' argument doesn't apply to two-year old changes. The point of stability is to prevent edit wars, and is very much intended to be current. The stability clause is actually to prevent precisely the sort of move you're trying, though that shouldn't prevent you from making the effort anyways. Either way, feel free to discuss that as much as you like on the article page with whomever is interested. Personally, I won't be filling up spyke's talk page any further. Bladestorm 21:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. If someone changed the style of the article to be the Queen's English, it wouldn't matter if a day had passed or a decade - people would change it back. Just because no one who cares about the title noticed it for a couple of years doesn't make a lick of a difference. If opposition exists for an unnecessary move, then it doesn't matter. Also, I dispute that the contributions following the renaming are more significant than the earlier ones. I claim that the article is STILL a stub - the gameplay doesn't even go into intricate details of the touch gameplay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Halloween Havoc

I sourced the fact I posted. Don't ever removed sourced facts from an article, it could be considered vandalism. --CmdrClow 08:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, within the context of wikipedia, it wasn't (and still isn't) sourced. A dvd is neither verifiable nor reliable (unless, perhaps, it's being used solely to express the opinions of the people who made it; but certainly never for claims that you want to present as outright fact, as in this case).
Also, while although a 'citation needed' tag may have been preferable, it still is never considered vandalism to remove statements that don't have a single source that fits wikipedia's criteria. Bladestorm 15:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
As it is used on the Monday Night War article, and since the match in question took place at the event (and since the Havoc article mentions the re-airing on Nitro) then common sense dictates that it would be a point of interest in regards to Havoc '98. Stop removing it. --CmdrClow 23:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
BECAUSE you mention the re-airing in the first place, the consequence of the re-airing of the match is notable to the facts of the article AND the event. A leads to B leads to C. --CmdrClow 23:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If the re-airing is not notable, then simply remove it. If the re-airing stays there, then the relevance of the ratings victory must stay as well. I'll keep reverting it and take it to an admin, because I know they'll agree with me. Either remove the factoid, or keep the consequential factoid. Your choice. --CmdrClow 23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
It was because of the match on Nitro FROM Halloween Havoc that boosted the ratings and gave the night to WCW. So, by extension, Halloween Havoc 1998 won the ratings victory against RAW on October 26th, 1998. Wikipedia has an article for Halloween Havoc and a section devoted to the '98 event. Because the ratings victory is DIRECTLY CORRELATED to the airing of Havoc's main event, it makes it both relevant AND notable. --CmdrClow 23:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikilinks

Please remember our discussion for the future. Mshake3 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance

Me, doing vandalism, honey I am helping you out, but there is always vandalism every time I try to fix thing, they wont' stop. Art 281 01:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said I am helping you out but everytime I revert and removed the vandalism somebody else put crap in it, they won't stop. And what is wrong with my edits??? Art 281 01:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

download

I am downloading the PPV now, but all the reports I have read say it was just Edge. TJ Spyke 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • back in january u posted this, i just wanted to know were u download from cus i cant find the download Y2J RKO 18:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I downloaded it from a messageboard I used to post on. They shut down in early April though. TJ Spyke 20:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mario Strikers

If you would stop disappearing for days on end and force the discussion to a halt, I wouldn't have to force you to come back. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe a move request would be best, at the very least it would encourage others to join in on the conversation. TJ Spyke 21:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
It'd help if YOU joined into the discussion. The discussion constantly screeches to a halt because you stop participating. I've presented a new argument, and the fact that you don't seem to even be trying to discuss it anymore is bothersome. Using the original title for the article is only when in doubt. The fact that Strikers Charged Football has television advertising, is released all across the PAL region, is a popular sport in the PAL region, has been selling well, and most importantly has received more news coverage than the NA version shows doubt. Get rid of everything but superior news coverage - and there's still no doubt. Show me the doubt that makes keeping with the title necessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well? I'm awaiting your reasoning why greater news coverage isn't good enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Link, this is adversarial, bordering on combative. Bladestorm 21:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. TJ is willing to come over to the article to revert a move, but not willing to participate in the discussion. At what point can he just ignore the discussion and revert? Either he never saw it and now has no excuse to ignore it, or ignored it in the first place. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
He reverted a move that was done out of process and without consensus. That's a no-brainer. But he isn't obligated to indulge you in this. If he wishes to let other people express their opinions, rather than arguing, then that's admirable. But posting once on his page, and then, ten minutes later, reposting with, "Well? I'm awaiting..." is unnecessarily hostile. Bladestorm 21:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE Vengeance#2007 non-notables

I think that the reason for Johnny Nitro replacing Bennoit, and the Duece 'N Domino match should be listed since they weren't 'on the card' as scheduled, or determined via a storyline. Socby19 22:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Socby19

The Nitro noted is included (I added it myself last night), the tag team match no so much. We usually don't not that it was an open challenge afterwards. TJ Spyke 22:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event results

In your summary, what exactly you mean "keep to the current format"? all I'm basically doing is adding the name of the arena and the link to WWE.com. If you mean "the format" by non-bold text, I'll de-bold the letters. 24.21.130.80 23:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. 24.21.130.80 23:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Wait. If I write a championship match out like
WWF Championship: Hulk Hogan defeated Paul Orndorff
instead of
Hulk Hogan defeated Paul Orndorff to retain the WWF Championship
if I use the above format, how can I tell which person is champion going out the match, since for the below format, it is distinguished by the words "retain" or "win". I'm just wondering about that part. 24.21.130.80 23:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
by what you meant by "format", did you mean something like "Flag Match: Hulk Hogan defeated Nikolai Volkoff (w/Classy Freddie Blassie) to retain the WWF Championship" instead of "Hulk Hogan defeated Nikolai Volkoff (w/Classy Freddie Blassie) in a Flag Match to retain the WWF Championship? 24.21.130.80 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 26 25 June 2007 About the Signpost
Board election series: An interview with the candidates RfA receives attention, open proxies policy reviewed
WikiWorld comic: "Thagomizer" News and notes: Logo error, Norwegian chapter, milestones
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

For helping me out with User: Polarbear12345. He won't stop he has been doing this for 1 hour! Art 281 22:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have given him another warning. If he does it again, I will report him to WP:AIV. Take a look at WP:UTM, in the future you should use those templates since it will make it easier to report them. TJ Spyke 22:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comments

Hi, thanks for the comment but I thought I was talking about the article. Chris Benoit was very popular on WWE and the other wrestling sites. I thought I would bring attention to his death to everyone to see if it would be proper to use in the article since there are secondary sources. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I understand where you are coming from on this subject. The last think I want to do is cause anyone problems. I was just trying to help. Thanks again for clarifying for me. --CrohnieGalTalk 23:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Console

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Virtual Console games (North America), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Miles Blues 05:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

VC mediation

Should I just add myself to this list if I want to be apart of the mediation? Neo Samus 05:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not yet, but if/when it gets started you can participate. Looks like it might not happen though because Rob isn't agreeing to mediation (all involved parties have to agree), which I don't get because he is part of the reason the article just got protected AGAIN. TJ Spyke 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I keep my eye peeled on that page though in case anything changes. Neo Samus 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of Virtual Console games (North America).
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC).

Request for opinion

I was just wondering what your take is on reporting the Benoit murder/suicide on the CM Punk page? Right now, it indicates that Nitro replaced Benoit against Punk after Benoit no showed "after murdering his wife and son". I was wondering how.. or even if.. we should proceed in having that reported there? Should we keep it as is, or replace it with the reason they gave during Vengeance? Your sagely advice would be much appreciated. Garistotle 14:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Help

Hey TJ, Can you make me a code for warning anout vandalism. Someone vandalized a page. He has a username, but it's been so long since I've been on I forgot. So I'd appreciate it if you'd send me the template. Thanks -- Kings bibby win 20:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Benoit

Hey Spyke the benoit page is still under pro wrestling project and considering that you probably have more editing rights than me, could you keep an eye on the talk page, people are vandalizing it and such. Thanks gravediggerfuneral

Yeah, I will take a look now and then to help out. TJ Spyke 23:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Harold Hoag

Just read your edit summary for the article stated - that really sucks!! --SteelersFan UK06 02:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Insurrexion

So..... why is that not a Raw PPV again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mshake3 (talk • contribs)

It is a RAW brand PPV, you were the one that removed it. TJ Spyke 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Eh, shit happens. Whatever. Mshake3 03:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ice Age 2 Wii.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ice Age 2 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I NEED AN OPINION

Take a look at the suggestion I made at the bottom of the talk page for WP:PW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hornetman16 (talk • contribs)

OK. TJ Spyke 05:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Battalion Wars 2-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Battalion Wars 2-logo.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Page Protection?

Okay, so that Extreme Championship Wrestling page is getting downright irritating. The people who keep adding that puddle of mudd stuff aren't taking it to the talk page, and nobody should have to risk 3RR just keeping unsourced stuff out.
Happen to know how we can request a page protection? Bladestorm 00:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFP. Instruction there are pretty simple (i've used it so many times since WWE PPV articles always have to get semi-protected). TJ Spyke 00:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TJ_Spyke/Archive_10&oldid=1090607228"