User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 11

Admin
Het TJ, I was wondering if you will give me permission to nominate you for adminship? -- Kings bibby win 19:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but not yet. I want to show people I have changed (my stubbornness caused me to get blocked a few times for 3RR violations instead of just waiting and letting someone else revert it back). I appreciate the offer though. TJ Spyke 19:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There still hacking at you for that three-revert-rule? Who did you argue against? -- Kings bibby win 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Different people who were adding stuff that wasn't supposed to be in articles, but it wasn't technically vandalism (which is just about the only thing exempt from 3RR). TJ Spyke 19:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well if it's not relevant to the article, why di they get you for the 3RR? -- Kings bibby win 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not vandalism, it's considered a "content dispute" (like how some people kept editing the WrestleMania XX article to say that both Guerrero and Benoit would die within the next 3 years). TJ Spyke 19:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * O yea, Content Dispute. You'll have to excuse me I took a 4 month wiki-break. How did they know that about Benoit-Guerero? -- Kings bibby win 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, over the last couple of days they would add in the notes section about them both dying. Stuff which is not really relevant to the article and doesn't need to be there, it's not technically vandalism though. TJ Spyke 20:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, technically it's not, but it is irrelevant and shouldn't they be blocked? I mean repeatetly making "bad faith edits" isn't considered vandalism? -- Kings bibby win 20:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically they weren't violating WP:VANDAL. No one got blocked for this situation though, that was just an example of the situation that happened to me. TJ Spyke 20:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well TJ, being a "Top Contributor", such as yourself, your a target on every edit you make. Although you know that by now. -- Kings bibby win 20:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ice Age 2, the Meltdown
The image was originally replaced because the one that was on was pixelated and looked a little untidy. The one I uploaded had a good resolution to it and did not look bad on the page, and shows the artwork very clearly. I did not realise though that it was the Australian box. Thanks for your feedback. , EwanMclean2005 OK. TJ Spyke 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

TNA Victory Road 2007 edit
The main event was announced on TNA Impact tonight, so no speculation on my part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsterdamamerican (talk • contribs)
 * You need to learn how time zones work —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsterdamamerican (talk • contribs)

So you take down my info and then repost the same thing yourself 10 minutes later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsterdamamerican (talk • contribs)
 * Replied on your talkpage. TJ Spyke 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

WCW PPVS
I added a source for the HogWild 96 PPV change I made. I'm new at this so I couldn't figure out how to put it in the article, so I put in the discussion page. I'm looking for similar links for the other changes I made. 69.69.146.160 04:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series
Here's the thing. Yes, the production crew screwed up. However, ring announcer Howard Finkel was correct. Here's the video. Listen closely. In an attempt to fix this mistake for the commercial release, they flip flopped Howard's announcement of the championship names so that his words matched what was shown graphically. The only problem is that they switched the wrong thing! Now it looks like both the production crew and the Fink were wrong.

I'm all for leaving the mistake with the graphics in the article, and I'd even include this error with the DVD in a notes section. But the Fink didn't screw up his announcing, and it shouldn't be reflected as such. Mshake3 04:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. I didn't watch the event live. Well, I think it should still be noted (just changed to make it clear that Fink didn't screw it up, which makes sense since Fink is supposed to be a wiz when it comes to wrestling trivia and I doubt he would make that kind of mistake). TJ Spyke 04:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad you understand. Also, remember this?, He was partially correct. It was made clear throughout the show that anyone who was a champion would be guaranteed a job regardless of the main event. Now of course, Tajiri/Regal didn't have that stip, but for the others (championships, battle royal, main event) it did. Perhaps this could be mentioned in the intro that it was a night of survival as nearly every match potentially had a job on the line. Mshake3 04:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

TNA Victory Road 2007
How is it not relevent? Cornette said it himself, and it IS a stipulation. It needs to be stated that if one of the tag champions gets pinned by Joe or Angle, then Joe or Angle get to choose who their co-holder of the tag title is. I assume good faith that will you allow me to keep the edit in the article 80.229.169.189 21:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

DVD cover notes
I see no proof its notable. Look at movie articles: the majority I've seen don't have notes about who is on the cover (or what the cover looks like) or anything similar. Just because TNA event articles have had them a while, doesn't make it notable for any or all event articles. Stop reverting for no reason, except for your personal opinion. I noticed the project page discussion about it: you are the only one for listing them (as of now). Unless a good reason is given, they will be removed. RobJ1981 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SuperBrawl Revenge.JPG
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:SuperBrawl Revenge.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 non-free media 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.BetacommandBot 04:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.
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 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Vengeance
There was a lot of emphasis on the line at the PPV. And I mean a lot. In addition to being mentioned quite a bit (as compared to most taglines, which are 99% are ignored by WWE and their TV production crew.), it was given a lot of attention in the design of the final logo and the graphical videos. Plus, Vengeance: Night of Champions can be said all at once, while still sounding natural, as opposed to your WrestleMania 21 example, where it doesn't. Mshake3 01:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether it "sounds natural" or not doesn't matter. A lot of PPV events have had a strong emphasis on the tagline (WrestleMania XX with "Where it All Begins...Again" is a good one. They kept mentiong it a lot). Most WWE PPV's don't even have taglines. Yes they mentioned the tagline a lot, but it was still just a tag line. Maybe a compromise, "Vengeance 2007: Night of Champions"? TJ Spyke 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd leave the year out. In past years, they have promoted the year as part of the title (so my last edit to all the previous years was a mistake), while this year, the emphasis was on the tagline. Changing the way you promote yearly PPVs is nothing new. (WrestleMania XV one year, then WrestleMania 2000 the next). Mshake3 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Great American Bash
I noticed you removed a user's edit because you hadn't heard the announcement. There is no need to act paranoid because you didn't hear it. I've seen you do this in the past as well. Acting like you are the only expert on the subject, and only adding the content you hear simply isn't how Wikipedia works. Not every user is out to vandalize and/or add unsourced matches, so stop thinking they are. I don't see you adding official sources very much in edit summaries, so how can I be sure you are adding sourced information either? It goes both ways. If they aren't doing it, and you aren't doing it either: it's not just correct to assume they are doing something wrong. RobJ1981 05:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All the vandals that add BS info has made me a little pessimistic. I quickly added it back and explained on the talk page, so no harm was done. TJ Spyke 05:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Survivor Series
Sorry about that edit to survivor series 2007. it wasnt me, just my cuzin using my computer. he doesnt know anything about wikipedia. Lex94 03:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Backlash 07
Why isn't uni-brand notable? "Starting with Backlash® on April 29, WWE fans will see all their favorite Superstars on every pay-per-view. This is a change from 2005 and 2006, when only four of WWE’s 16 pay-per-views featured talent from more than one WWE brand." Direct quote. So if it wasn't the first like both I and the WWE say, what was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Projectmayhem44 (talk • contribs)
 * Replied on your talk page about discussing it. TJ Spyke 04:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2007
Since when did we start letting poster on the articles that's not from WWE itself? I'll leave the Poster there now but I just wanna know.- Hornet man  16  07:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the poster is from iN DEMAND (which is where we also got the Judgment Day poster and several TNA posters from), I think we can consider it reliable. Of coarse, when WWE puts the poster up on their site we can replace it (since it will be better quality). TJ Spyke 20:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop "fixing" my links that aren't broken
"Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken".«»bd(talk stalk) 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Kevin Aguilar
This is a sock puppet account and has been indefinitely blocked as such, and protected to prevent further unblock abuse. No warnings are necessary. :-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

proof
Show me proof that its both and it can stay.BlueShrek 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The proof is the POSTER on the page. It's staying, period. TJ Spyke 22:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

STOP
Making comments that aren't true is very rude and not needed. You very well know other editors reverted the Virtual Console list, so don't just blame it on me. Be civil, otherwise just don't edit the article anymore. Frankly, you aren't above Wikipedia policies, so stop acting like you are. You act uncivil, assume bad faith and personal attack me way too much. This needs to stop, articles are for everyone to edit. One little line does no harm, so stop thinking it does. Articles shouldn't be setup to your personal view all the time. RobJ1981 23:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't deny though that you were the main reason. You started the issue and you kept bringing it up even after consensus was against you. I don't think it should be mentioned at all since it's not notable, but I am willing to accept a compromise, you obviously aren't. I do act civil most of the time, but you seem to not want to accept any compromise with other people on anything (like when you were the only one who refused meditiation on the VC issue). TJ Spyke 23:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A few times I haven't compromised, doesn't even match all the times you refused to compromise and just edit warred to 3RR violations (not in all cases, but in alot of them). Dragging in a big issue like the VC list, doesn't compare to a few words for another article. A few words doesn't affect the article as much as you think it does. While we are the subject of past things: your reverting of correct information on Great American Bash wasn't needed (as I stated in an above section). That's a form of bad faith in my view, as you are assuming everyone that you don't know is out to wreck articles you edit and/or watch regularly. Articles can't be perfect 100 % of the time. If something is wrong, someone will catch it. It doesn't need to just be automatically removed because you didn't hear the information at that second. RobJ1981 07:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

and
until you provide a source stating it Ill keep removing it. If you want it in so bad just find a reliable source that says it.BlueShrek 15:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is OR. You dont know for sure whether or not its monty brown and Lashley or just lashley. You have to provide a source. Quit edit waring with me or ill report you.BlueShrek 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing dont call people vandals unless they are ACTUALLY vandalising something. Leave the matter alone unless you can provide a source. Sorry man its not my fault you have to follow the rules.BlueShrek 20:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Dont start your petty name calling. I have reported this matter to the admins. Hopefully you will be able to learn from this mistake. No hard feelings from me.BlueShrek 20:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever guy our fight is over it is now for the Admins to decide. Once they pass judgement I hope you dont hold personal grudges and I hope that we can coexist. I personally have no problem with you but I do suggest you study up on your policies a little more and I hope you put your best foot forward in the future. This fight was pointless and I hope you see how the level youve taken it to by making false accusations and petty name calling, not to mention lying to the admins hasnt done the article no good. Thank you for your time.BlueShrek 20:35, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This fight isnt about Lashley being on it its about Brown being on it. He is not you were wrong END of story. You have called me vandal and Newb which are both name calling and arent tolerated. I will once again tell you to try to learn the rules and dont try to edit war. Good Day.BlueShrek 20:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right you have called me names and are still trying to act like you were innocent. Im not saying I hope you get blocked but #1 you knew it was coming and #2 You wouldnt help me if the situation was reversed.BlueShrek 21:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Bulletproof
Hey bulletproof wanted me to tell you that since his account has been hacked he cannot reply to you. man poor bulletproof. --User:Atomic Religione
 * Yeah, I saw that on his page when I was gonna talk to him about something. I think he is right about who probably did it, hopefully he can get the issue resolved since it would be a shame for Wikiepedia to lose him. TJ Spyke 03:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania Font
Why is it notable to mention that this was the last time the classic font was used, except the time it returned at a later wrestlemania? Mshake3 17:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the font one is shaky and could go. The note in the Hardcore Title should stay though. TJ Spyke 19:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.
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 08:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Zelda PH.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Zelda PH.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 21:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE Big 4 PPV and not so big PPV
why are they different for example their picture and Travis for Wrestlemaina yet for backlash all there is are the results why is that ? supermike 5:38, 7 July 2007
 * For one thing, they each have their own article. They are also considered the major PPV's from WWE (the others are usually considered minor). If you think we should do it differently, you can also bring it up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 21:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

can you help me do that I not sure how too supermike
 * Just go to the talk page of WP:PW. Click on that little + sign next to "Edit this page", then write the name of the topic in the space bar and what you want to say on the section below. TJ Spyke 22:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Injustice
This is ridiculous. You have blocked TJ Spyke indefinetly. Maybe, a one month band, but you blocked him indefinetly. All you should be ashamed of yourself. Yes I'm talking to the admins to! THis man contributes to WP so much. If you read all of our talk pages for the WWE PPV's and the wrestlers on them, you'll see that he is one of the very few that keeps his temper and still keeps order. I can't believe this. Blocking him for the 3RR? Are you kidding me? Even the "sock puppetry". I mean this is truly unjustice. If I could I would take the block for him. -- Kings bibby win 20:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Even the guy who created WP:ADOPT has been blocked. Blocking established users if and when they step out of line is appropriate. If a cop sells drugs, should we let them off the hook bacause they've arrested criminals in the past? Of course not; if anything you treat them more harshly because they know better than anyone else. Anyway, if it makes you feel better I'm about to file a report on WP:AN/I to see if the block is endorsed by the admins.  The  Hyb  rid  17:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.  The  Hyb  rid  18:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial proposals
Please see my comment here. Thanks, — thesublime514  •  talk  • 05:48, July 7, 2007 (UTC)

One Night Stand
I saw him report you to the admins for a violation of the 3RR, which you didn't violate. If you give me a direct link, I can try to back you up, since Shrek boy seems to have Rob with him. I'd hate to see you get another temp ban. You're a vital part of the WikiProject. Gavyn Sykes 22:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the discussion on his talkpage: User talk:BlueShrek (if it's another link you mean, let me know). TJ Spyke 22:44, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought you had meant Rob was pushing for the administrators to punish you for a 3RR you didn't violate. That's the link I meant. I found it a while back, but lost track of it. Gavyn Sykes 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, just figured id let you know that if you and Gavin try to gang up on me ill report you both.BlueShrek 22:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * sighs* You may want to read the rules a bit more throughly. You're misinterpreting a fair few of them.Gavyn Sykes 22:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to help BlueShrek, even pointing him out to WP:VANDAL after he accused me of vandalism (even though content dispute is not vandalism) and threatened to report me when I hadn't done anything. TJ Spyke 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone needs to adopt him and teach him the rules. Gavyn Sykes 23:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I had suggested that, and apparently you did too. He acts like he doesn't need one, and he seems really familiar with how some things work on WP (reporting a user) but not others (what is considered vandalism, removing sources from articles). TJ Spyke 19:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for revert-warring on WWE One Night Stand, Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE), TNA Victory Road, among other places (has not stopped despite previous blocks). To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. --  tariq abjotu  23:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't violate it on Victory Road (I haven't had more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period). I didn't violate on ECW (check the edits themselves. I didn't revert more than 3 times, I just added a citation needed tag). The ONS one is really shaky at best since the issue had been resolved (the problem was this new user wanted proof that one person was on the poster, and I provided them proof). TJ Spyke 23:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I specifically didn't use "3RR" in my block reason as I hoped to avert (rather unsuccessfully, I see) the kind of comment you made above. I am more than aware that you did only revert three times in a couple of those cases, but you were revert-warring regardless. You neared the four reverts on multiple occasions and attempted to game the system by making similarly disruptive edits instead. From WP:3RR:
 * "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an 'electric fence'.[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive."
 * Given your extensive block record for 3RR violations, I'm using my discretion here and blocking you accordingly. The purpose of the 3RR was not to prevent people from making four reverts in twenty-four hours, but rather to prevent people from edit-warring. I see it has not yet accomplished that in your case. Additionally, I only looked through your recent contribution history; it's worrisome enough that I was able to find so many instances of edit-warring. --  tariq abjotu  00:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the ONS article, I believe that in the technical sense, he did not violate the rule, though at a first glance it may appear that he did. This other user Blue Shrek refused to accept proof that his info on the poster was correct, despite a provided source, which caused TJ to revert the article again. However, it was not an identical edit to the last three reverts, as the next was different. Gavyn Sykes 00:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say that while the issue is now dead, TJ is wrong. He is trying to say that He provided proof of someone being on the poster but he provided proof for someone that wasnt being disagreed upon. We all knew it was Lashley. The ban is just as its the 3 RR not the 4RR and he did violate it and TJ I hope you take time to read over the rules and Regs.BlueShrek 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Shrek, if the issue is dead, why don't you stop beating a dead horse?, thank you. Bmg 916 Speak 11:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The three revert rule specifies that you are not to revert the same instance of an edit more than 3 times in a 24-hour period, Shrek. If you read the above admin comment, the 3RR isn't what he is being blocked for anyway (though both of us were under that impression). Gavyn Sykes 00:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BlueShrek just doesn't seem to like me, and seems to be an angry person in general. Someone sent me an e-mail saying he's now accusing me of being a sockpuppet, I can't reply in the discussion though since my block doesn't expire for another few days. Some of the "evidence" is flimsy at best (the fact that I USED to use "Mr. Kennedy" as a username on a messageboard, a messageboard that I haven't even visited in over 3 months, which this other user has as a MSN username. Rob even admitted that Kennedy is a very popular wrestler, so of coarse a lot of people will use his name.) TJ Spyke 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, typical Wikipedia day. TJ Spyke, once again, gets blocked for violating the 3RR. BlueShrek will continue to hate him. Administrators will continue to bring back all of TJ Spyke's past 3RR breaking, which they use as a testimony. (sigh) I wonder why admins block TJ Spyke for helping Wikipedia, but they don't block supposedly "good faith edits" by users who continue to revert all our edits every pay-per-view?. It's a shame though. Spyke hang in their. I understand your frustration. I'll talk to the admin for you. -- Kings bibby win 06:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Community sanction noticeboard
Please see the discussion there. Moreschi Talk 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, being an idiot; you can post your responses and thoughts here, and I'll copy them over to there. Or, if you wish, I can unblock you just so you can participate in that thread, though please not anywhere else. Moreschi Talk 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I am going out in a little bit and don't have time to come up with full reply yet, I will keep this brief for now. First, being allowed to revert only once per week for a year seems like a pretty harsh punishment. On those articles I was listed as edit warring on, I wouldn't exactly call it that. On the TNA Victory Road article, we seemed to have had a compromised version (I didn't think the match tagline should be mentioned at all while Rob wanted to mention it, so I came up with a version that mentioned in without giving it its own line), which went unobjected for over a week before an IP changed it to imply the tagline was the match type, and went I changed it back to the compromised version Rob just reverted it back (I should point out that Rob seems to reject any compromises on any articles, as evidenced by him causing the List of Virtual Console games (North America) article to be locked for almost 2 full weeks and being the ONLY one involved who refused to participate in mediation, eventually a compromise was reached after he stopped joining in the discussion all together. He also refused to compromise on the WWE One Night Stand and SummerSlam (2005) articles. As for One Night Stand, the new user (BlueShrek) did not want to discuss the issue at all on the talkpage of the article, threatened to report me to an admin (this was after the first time I reverted his edit) and insulting me, and even reverted after I provided him proof of what he wanted (he wanted a source that Bobby Lashley was on the ONS poster, and when I gave him a link right from WWE's website, he removed the edit even though my edit only mentioned Lashley). I wasn't try to sneak around 3RR, I thought I was in the right but I just didn't want to take a chance (but I still wanted to make it clear in the edit summary of what I thought).

I should also point out that the only block I agreed with was the first one (the page involved was about the character Baby from DBZ, see the lamest edit wars page for more detail). As for the others, the blocking admins pretty much said that I was right and that I should have just gotten someone else to revert. I always try to discuss the issue, but some people either refuse to discuss the issue or refuse to accept anything except how they want it. Even when I (and others) offer a compromise, they still revert. One last thing, why was BlueShrek not blocked at all even though he reverted 5 or 6 times on the same day for the ONS article?

BTW, this is not the last thing I have to say, I just don't have a lot of time right now. TJ Spyke 22:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop making false claims TJ. You refused MANY compromises on the list page, while I refused one mediation because of your attitude. I was told by an admin to avoid the page as much as I could: that's why I just "stopped joining in" the discussion. Get your facts straight, instead of assuming things just to make me look bad. I agreed with that compromise anyway, so get over yourself. Stop dragging my name in the mud with false comments. Admit your mistakes instead of pointing at everyone else and blaming them for your edit warring/reverting/3RR and so on. RobJ1981 05:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * One "compromise" was the one that caused the page to be locked the second time (since all you did was remove the points from the table, and you claimed that was a sacrifice), the other created another table that wasn't too helpful. In both cases, there were others who disagreed. If you stopped because of an admin, maybe that's a good thing since we finally reached a version that everyone agreed on. Also, what about on the SummerSlam 2005 and TNA Victory Road articles where you didn't want a compromised version? TJ Spyke 18:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I can no longer edit, here is what I have to say. I am willing to accept a 1 month ban and 6 month revert parole. I have never tried to harm WP and have never vandalized WP, and have always tried to help improve articles (which sometimes led me to getting in a revert war with someone who's edit was not helping the article). I just don't think that my punishment should be discussed without any input from me (and think that Alkivar just has a grudge against me, since he is buddies with someone who openly hurts wrestling articles by blanking them under his misinterpretation of BLP, and Alkivar indef blocked me before for reverting a blanking AND sourcing that article. That block was quickly overturned since I was banned minutes after sourcing that article). TJ Spyke 05:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly think I can interpret vandalism to my user page coming from Rochester, New York anything to help Wikipedia. It is now proven that you ran multiple sockpuppet accounts for the sake of deception, were block evading on multiple occasions, revert warred on multiple articles repeatedly (despite your promise to change) your ways, and now vandalism coming from your location is reported. I don't think there are many admins willing to do an unblock so you could continue this behavior. — M o e   ε  01:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't me and I thought you would know it. I have never vandalized WP, the edits were made at a time when I am not even online (around 1PM ET according to your user page log). My IP is 65.37.60.195, and an admin can confirm this. I have never tried to hurt WP or any of the articles, and have tried to do the best I could to help articles, and I would never resort to vandalism (especially on the userpage of a user I respect, and thought respected me back). I don't recall promising to change before, but I do pledge to change now. Almost all of my blocks (except for like the first one) have been cases where an admin said that the article should have been reverted, but that I should have asked someone else to revert it rather than revert it myself. I am not sure how I can show I have changed (like you suggest on the Community Sanction page) though since I can only edit on this page, and I am not sure how I can proof that the IP who vandalized your page wasn't me (besides the fact that the edits were made at a time when I am never on WP and that I live in a pretty big city, it would be like assuming that an IP vandal from Jacksonville is you). TJ Spyke 06:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I see block evading by using a sockpuppet as harmful to Wikipedia. You ignore your block, by using another account just so you can edit. That's both disrespectful and completely rude in my view. You didn't do vandalism under the other account: but that's not the point here. Being sneaky by block evading with another account still isn't justfied. Considering you've been caught with socks before, who can actually say you will never use a sockpuppet again? The IP that vandalized Moe's page wasn't confirmed (that I know), but the recent sock of Lrrr IV was. There is no excuse for using that sock. Respecting rules shouldn't be such a difficult thing to do. RobJ1981 05:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already talked to a couple of people, I have agreed to admit my mistakes and have accepted a proposed punishment (I don't want to discuss it unless the agreement is accepted by the admin who blocked me). I have used sockpuppets, but I swear that I wasn't the one who vandalized Moe's page (I have never vandalized any page on WP and wouldn't resort to something like that). TJ Spyke 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Accepting a punishment" isn't the idea. The idea of a community sanction is that you are told what will happen. There really isn't a choice.  The  Hyb  rid  11:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What I meant is that I won't try to sneak around it, or complain about it being unfair, etc. Basically I will admit my mistakes and take the punishment like a man. TJ Spyke 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I misunderstood you. Personally, I've had a change of heart. Once I've come up with the right things to say I'll try to get your block officially lowered to end on December 1st, like the final proposal at the CSN. Just a quick question though; have you discussed the things here with anyone in real life? No details are necessary.  The  Hyb  rid  22:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

User page
Can somebody revert my user page? An IP vandal screwed it up and I can't do anything about it. TJ Spyke 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now some people are doing it to my talkpage, it's pretty annoying. I think they may be friends of that troll who kep reverting the WMIII attendance number (he has been proven to be a troll). The WMIII article seems to be semi-protected, so they can revert the page anymore. I think they may be his friends, because 3bulletproof16 pointed me out to a website that the troll belongs to where he complains about WP in general and me/bulletproof specifically. TJ Spyke 19:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For some reason, an IP changed my userpage into a redirect to this talkpage. Why? TJ Spyke 05:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just standard procedure.  The  Hyb  rid  11:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Images
Hey TJ, Some idiot called user:Jeffrey O. Gustafson has deleted some great wrestling images (they were some moving pics of mankind falling of the heel in a cell, and him going throgh it0 located on the Hell in a Cell page. Now i have visited Jeffrey O. Gustafson's page and his account no longer is there. Could he be a vandal?

PS I own on of those pics so if you wont me to upload it please write back to me

Thanks, Donald Sutherland
 * Was that HIAC one the animate GIF? If so, that was from the WWE broadcast and not fair use. I suggest talking to the admin who deleted them. Also, some people don't type anything on their userpage (and thus it appears as a non-page). TJ Spyke 18:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.
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 20:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

=Cruiserweight Open at great American bash= I was wondering if it should be mention that these is the 4 Cruiserweight Open this year on the Cruiserweight section ? supermike
 * IMO, no. TJ Spyke 21:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright
I have unprotected the talk page like you have requested by e-mail. If you have something to say, you can say it now. — M o e   ε  16:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)