User talk:LM2000/Archive 1

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative
Hi,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The  Helpful  Bot  16:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Layfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Josh Matthews (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Funkadactyls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TMZ (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Service Award
You're welcome. (User talk:Vjmlhds) Vjmlhds 22:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Kane is his common name listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kane is his common name. Since you had some involvement with the Kane is his common name redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). noq (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Doubting good faith . ..
or questioning whether the person has even read the article, is not a really good way to address a tag. I have read the article. And I do question the neutrality, just the same way I question the whole way the English media has handled the Savile affair, as I would call it. For 50 years the English media delighted in the guy. Four women make unsubstantiated allegations against him in a documentary a year after his death and suddenly he's the devil himself. When I start pointing out media that is favorable to Savile such as a woman's claim that she had a 40 year off and on relationship with him and refuting the paedophile claims http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg I am told that The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, even after the article uses a Daily Mail source in an attempt to accuse Savile of paedophllia through speculation and hearsay. Also, the article does not use BBC and other news reports that exonerate Savile: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets. That particular video features an Assistant Chief Constable on the West Yorkshire Police force stating that it does not have any evidence nor reports against Savile, let alone any criminal charges against him.

I think this is a witch hunt. All it is is a bunch of posthumous he said/she said stuff.

Compare the Savile Article against the Joe Paterno and Penn State Child Sex Abuse Articles and there is no comparison. Wikipedia is like the English Court of Public Opinion, out for a witch hunt that the facts do not substantiate.johncheverly 02:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If you compare Savile's article to convicted predators, like the aforementioned Sandusky, it should be apparent that the language used in these articles is completely different because Sandusky was convicted and Savile was not. You also questioned why about his friendship with Thatcher was not mentioned but it actually is.  Another user mentioned this to you as well.  With that aside I reverted your edit because I felt it went against consensus based on what I was reading in talk.  Many of the tags including autobiography, needing citations, global, etc. were also irrelevant.  I'm sorry I could not have been more eloquent in my edit summary and I hope you weren't offended.  Hope this clears everything up..LM2000 (talk) 03:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted and since you are not talking to me like Ol'GrumpAss, or whatever it's name is, I have concisely put these specific citations down where I was asked about what I would like to see included in the Savile Article/s . . .I think it's important they be taken into account. I wanted to get someone on here that is a barrister or solicitor in the UK to provide legal context as to what the legal climate was like in the 60s and 70s when a lot of this stuff was alleged to have taken place.  Finally, Sanduskey was given do process of law, if you remember, Eight victims sat in the same Court Room with him and gave testimony against him.  IMHO, the Savile thing is a public character assassination to get 30 million pounds worth of insurance money out of the BBC.johncheverly 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you think the significance of all that might be, it seems irrelevant to improving the content of the article. All this correspondence was discussed before Thatcher's death, and is mentioned under "Public image and friendships" in his biography article. What changes do you think should be made to the article? Ghmyrtle (talk) 5:32 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

I definitely think there needs to be some quotes from Sir Jimmy Savile OBE's mistress Sue Hymns that "There's absolutely nothing there. People make those things up."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2069358/Jimmy-Saviles-secret-lover-Sue-Hymns-talks-VERY-unconventional-life-together.html

Also, his neice, Amanda McKenna, also has refuted the scandalous stories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koueH9D04yg

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-saviles-family-reveal-their-outrage-870828

And she tells how she was hurt over the years by false rumours about her uncle. BBC’s Newsnight even began an investigation into ­unfounded allegations ­relating to under-aged girls.

She says: “Uncle Jimmy ­always said, ‘People were looking for the big secret about me but the big secret is that there isn’t one’.”

Any mentions of his posthumous AUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY??? Why not???

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/leader/9806293.The_real_Jimmy/

Also, of the over 40 people that claim they were "molested" by Savile in the West Yorkshire region of England, NONE ever reported the incident to the West Yorkshire Police, and there is no evidence of any criminal behavior by Savile.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xrp6cHjets

Paul Gambiccini's Claims??? Why are they even included in this article??? Listen to all 11:30 minutes of this interview:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DutNY63LqO0 Complete bullshit there. This motherfucker has no concrete information. It's all a bunch of hot air by a has-been that never made it.

Talk about payoffs, don't you think you ought to add info from this article??? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/savile-to-cost-bbc-insurers-millions-8590981.html

Show me the fucking money=30 million pounds worth.

Also, what's the statute of limitations on the charges against Max Clifford, Freddie Starr, Rolf Harris, Jim Davidson, etcetera??? These guys are in their late 60's, early 70s now.

Is there anyone on Wikipedia that can give some kind of context of the English Legal system??? Were the laws the same in the 1960s and 1970s as they are today???

These are the things that are nagging me and that I come to Wikipedia for wanting to read FACTUAL ANSWERS ON.johncheverly 04:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Destination X (2013), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. EuroCarGT 00:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I was reverting edits that were not constructive made by an IP. The IP has gone on to edit war and if you had checked the revision history you would have seen my previous justifications, those justifications were based on the consensus of a rather lengthy discussion on WP:PW.  If anyone is the be warned it is the IP (who was actually already warned by a bot who actually detected his unproductive behavior), make sure you review the revision history more closely next time.LM2000 (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Service Award
You've gone up in the world since last time. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again! LM2000 (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Vjmlhds Vjmlhds (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Sources
I'm aware that BR is not a reliable source but it was the only one available as WWE.com hadn't posted the results at the time. Sorry Wikipedia police. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcg93 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how wrestlezone isn't a reliable source but fine, I apologize. I've used it before and you're the only one who appears to have a problem with it.

RE
Thanks. I think too. Also, he had discussions in Pokemon articles and an user support you. :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Airbender
Understood, although if you want some sources that call it one of the worst, I know some examples. I can add the film to the list again with these credentials if you wish.


 * Time Magazine; The Last Airbender: Worst Movie Epic Ever?
 * CNN names 'The Last Airbender' the worst movie of 2010
 * Disgrasian Review: ‘The Last Airbender’ May Be The Worst Movie Of All Time Which Means There May Be Such A Thing As Karma
 * 'Last Airbender' heads list of worst movies
 * E! News: Is Last Airbender the Worst Movie Ever?
 * The Last Airbender is the worst-reviewed movie of the year

--Matthew (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heath Slater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Big Show (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Enough
No disrepect intended but please stop erasing the contents on JoJo Offerman's page. You are the ONLY one who seems to always have a problem. I have not recieved any other complaints from any other wikipedia user besides you. I have not added ANY false information to JoJo's page and not to mention, I also created her wikipedia page. Therefore I will continue to re add the information. So please back off. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGCTwinsEdit (talk • contribs) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Actually you have me confused. I very well understand the image issues as it was my first time & I made mistakes but as far as others deleting my text can't be further from the truth. The only text I added to her personal life is her race. Others contributed the rest. Also the things I added were very much true AND verified, just because JoJo's name wasn't mentioned doesn't mean anything. Since you are very concerned with JoJo, I'm sure you saw her at ringside. So like I stated before, I will continue to add back the deleted context & if JoJo appears at ringside next week, I will add that as well so if you want to play tag then so be it. Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGCTwinsEdit (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC) himy name is bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.22.28.190 (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kaitlyn
I'm not going to argue with you, because I been through this before, and talked to the people on wikipedia about this. Just because the Chickbusters page was deleted like two times, does not mean that it isn't a notable milestone in Kaitlyn's career. When Kaitlyn, or even AJ Lee is seen, the WWE still brings up and reminiscence about the Chickbusters all the time. It may not be "notable" to you, but it is DEFINITELY notable to the WWE. About the NXT (once again) thing, WWE actually said those words, "first and only female in history to have won NXT" on their main page, I just mistakenly left out the "only" part. These things are WELL noticed by the WWE, and they are defining moments in Kaitlyn's career, and like I said, I've been through this before. The intro, as we all know, is a summary of the entire page, but of course listing (in this case) Kaitlyn's accomplishments/championships. If you need to tell me anything else, don't hesitate to. And I'm going to say this right now, this IS NOT a war, this is just a disagreement that were discussing as adults. Hemmeband17 (talk)

Sock-puppetry? Really? I have nothing to hide when I edit, because they are legit edits. So your accusing me of sock-puppetry with that 166.etc because they're not doing what your doing? Just because you do not agree with my edits, that does not mean everyone will agree with YOUR edits. You need to take acceptance to other peoples edits, and obviously this is not your first time getting this kind of feedback for deleting someone else's edits. You also had that same problem with BGCTwinsEdit (talk). Like I said before this is a discussion, and I'm not even going to bother with the "sock-puppetry" mishap, because this is just about the Kaitlyn page. Again, this is a discussion and not a war. Hemmeband17 (talk) 11:08 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious right now? This has nothing to do with you at all, but even you must know that Kaitlyn didn't use the Spear as a finisher until this year. And for the love of God, knock off the whole sock puppetry thing, cause now he believes that he's right about it! My edits are NOT wrong. So do NOT try and make this sock puppetry thing look like my edits are all wrong and think that I don't let anyone add anything on the pages. So stop Hemmeband17 (talk) 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see what you wrote on my page about the reverting. I think i fixed the problem. Hemmeband17 (talk) 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppetry?
Oh my God, I've been ignoring this whole situation with this sock puppetry thing, and quite frankly I think it is not that big of a deal. Not going to speak on Hemmeband17s behalf and stuff, but it is obvious that we both are huge fans of Kaitlyn and that we agreed on some stuff, but sock puppetry? That just sounds like an excuse to get someone blocked if you ask me. Like I said, I was ignoring it cause I didn't even know what it meant, but now Hemmeband17 is pissed at me (not that I really care) because he is blamed, and etc. Since this thing is just REALLY annoying, I'm not even going to be on here anymore cause ya'll take this stuff way to seriously. I admit, I did too sometimes though. Oh yea, this one is full on my fault, but the 166.82.70.107 user is actually me, I will also admit to that. Because everytime I leave a wikipedia page, my computer does this stupid thing where it logs me out and crap, and sometimes I forget to log in. I did not think that would lead to "sock puppetry". Still to me this is really like "wow", but whatever I guess. I'm deleting this anyway once I find out how. I already apologized to HHH Pedigree (talk) because I was actually wrong, and now I'm apologizing for ignoring this whole thing. And I really hardly ever apologize so, yea. Oh, and about after reading that "investigation" about not signing what I write, here is a hint why....I DIDN'T FREAKING KNOW HOW! I don't know Hemmeband17's excuse, but I didn't much know how. I still kind of don't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauntingwhisper (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

You finally got a confession, and you're still going on about this?? Really, what is your problem? You're taking this way too far. A check user? Really? Oh God, enjoy yourself. Haha, cause I'm done with this whole thing. Hemmeband17 (talk) 16 October 2013 (UTC)

TNA World Tag Team Titles
Hi I posted the offical video of the Kaz and Young situation here it is for you too see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igYgxQ8ZfSo they won the titles and were stripped but HHH Pedrigree keeps saying the video is reliable because the TNA website doesn't list them together as champions but the website it's self isn't even up to date I would like your opinion on this after seeing the video thank you JMichael22 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Also here is this https://bleacherreport.com/articles/1215372-wrestling-gold-the-history-of-the-tna-world-tag-team-championship/page/41 JMichael22 (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe their title reign was offical? JMichael22 (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Every wrestling site already provides the title reign TNA's website doesn't go into full detail regarding wrestlers title history I feel in this case we should go by other websites that show the proof of the title reign JMichael22 (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, LM2000. About OWOW, the website listed Drew McIntyre as two times IC Champion and Kofi as 5 times champion. (http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/titles/wwe/intercontinental/) I think like WWE Roster. TNA Titles are fictional and only the company decides the champions. In WWE Roster, we use only WWE.com to put them in main roster, I think that we should use TNA for TNA titles (until 2010, when the website erased the title list). Also, the video don't say too much. Cornette, in a promo, vacated the titles, but never said that Kaz and Eric were recognized as champions (like, for example, Ted DiBiase as WWE Champion). Anycase, TNA title history don't list them and Kaz profile says that he is Two time champion (2 with christopher daniels) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * TNA recognizes them as Champions who ever did the TNA wrestlers profiles got the information directly from this website WIKIPEDIA and I have the proof on Kazarian's TNA profile it says this (In 2007, Kazarian won the Fight for the Right Tournament. He also reigned as X Division King of the Mountain in 2008 and 2009.) which is not true if TNA payed any attention to their wrestling company they would of known that in 2009 Suicide won the X Division King of the Mountion Kazarian play'd the character of Suicide and TNA recognizes Suicide as the winner also. Kazarian as Kazarian or Kaz or Frankie Kazarian is a four time TNA X Division Champion not five the fifth title he won as Suicide so that clearly show Kazarian's TNA Profile isn't correct it also states (He’s a two-time TNA World Tag Team Champion and a five-time X Division Champion.) the Exact same way way on the it says on his WIKIPEDIA profile which means at the time of them making his profile they copied it the way it was written on the WIKIPEDIA so if someone changed him being a Tag Team Champion from three-times to two-times that's what the website copied because in reality Kaz and Eric Young/Super Eric won the TNA World Tag Team Championships that is my proof the profile isn't up to date JMichael22 (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you add the reign on the page the correct way? JMichael22 (talk) 17:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks sounds great JMichael22 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. What do you think about my idea to send TNA a message? An OTRS. They can give us a list of TNA champions and create the articles and dodge the controversy (Angle is 5 time or 4 times WHC? Creed was a substitute or a champion under the freebird rule? Kaz/Eric are recognized as champions?). You know about my english level, so I prefer somebody with a better level than me. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TNA fuck us since they retired the titles lists. If Michaels is right and TNA uses Wikipedia for the profiles... Wikipedia changes, so TNA profiles too. I always have some questions. 1st Angle's reign, I thought that it' was unofficial, because the title list started on June 17. Creed as World Tag Team champion... I don't find a source about the freebird rule, I always hear that Creed was a substitute, not a champion (like Shelley and Beer Money). --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WWE
I left a note on the talk page regarding the naming situation. Regards, -- Tærkast (Discuss) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael Cole
I don't feel as though the edit should be reverted. You don't agree that Michael Cole has conspicuous characteristics about him? He's supposed to be press people's buttons and be vocal. AmericanDad86 (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Rollback userright
Hi LM2000, thank you for helping to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep in mind these things when using rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin).
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * You may find the following links useful to customise how the rollback tool works on your account: Rollback and Customizing_watchlists

The reviewer userright may also be helpful for countering vandalism. If you are interested in helping out with it after you know how it works. Please feel free to request it at Requests for permissions/Reviewer or leave a message on my talk page. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty
Hello, would you mind if the summary of the GQ interview controversy were changed to achieve a neutral point of view? The following sentence is biased:

"On December 18, 2013, A&E announced the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, from the show 'over anti-gay remarks' in a GQ interview[4] which were widely-reported in the media.[5]"

It gives undue weight to one or more sources that characterized the comments as "anti-gay." Other sources characterized the comments as "controversial." In order to comply with WP:NPOV, the sentence should be revised because it presently suppresses information. . Also, please consider that anti-smoking policies are pro-smoker if those policies help that smoker to breathe cleaner air. Thus, it can be argued that Mr. Robertson's comments are not "anti-gay."

What do you think about the following proposed edit?

"On December 18, 2013, A&E announced the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, from the show over controversial remarks in a GQ interview which were interpreted as "anti-gay" by some[4] and were widely-reported in the media.[5]" Perusteltu (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Happy New Year to you as well! Thank you for getting back to me.  The opening section of the Duck Dynasty still has the biased language.  Would you help make the opening section neutral?  What do you think about the following proposed version?
 * "On December 18, 2013, A&E announced the indefinite suspension of Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, from the show over remarks he made in a GQ interview. Those widely-reported remarks were characterized as 'anti-gay' by some.[4][5]"
 * It can be argued that Phil Robertson's comments are pro-person because anti-smoking policies are pro-smoker if those policies help smokers to breathe healthier air. Perusteltu (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom
Re Sam Harris article.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 21:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case declined
Hi LM2000, this is a note to let you know that the Sam Harris BLP Arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 23:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened
Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon
As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Evidence closed
The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase
Hello LM2000, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)