User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 28

Godfather additional scenes
Why do you think that the article with the Godfather additional scenes was rightfully deleted? Was it bothering you? Lou72JG
 * I didn't delete it, although I agreed with the deletion. Extra scenes just are not notable, especially not notable to have their own article.  TJ   Spyke   17:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

TP 08
We've talked about this before. There is no main way to do it. Instead of reverting on a small statement, do something better with your time. I spent time actually expanding the article to make it read well, please respect the work I've done and the decisions I've made in format.-- Will C  18:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your only argument is it has been used for so long, so there is no reason to change it. Problem is: That doesn't mean it was correct or needed. The article was a start class for over a year, should it go back to that because it was fine that way? How about we delete every article expansion because it was fine the way it was before? You are like everyone else, afraid of change. Standard wrestling match was used first, and either can be used. So there was no reason to change it back. I started the article expansion a entire year ago. The reasons I use it is simple. Standard wrestling match makes more sense to a non-fan fan. It is easier to use in a sentence and flows. You want it the other way, because you can't stand the out of universe format and things not being your way. Here is an idea, actually expand something and quit going behind everyone else and changing things your ways. You already have a track record of trying to own articles, reverting everyone for your own selfish reasons, starting an edit war on a small subject like this instead of leaving the article alone for simple reasons; this will not help your situation.-- Will C  19:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha flawed? While you are saying it should stay the same because you like it. Name a reason it should stay guideline wise. There was no consensus on which one to use and consistency among articles is not an actual guideline. If it was, then every article on a common subject would be exactly the same with no extra info because they wouldn't have consistent formats. As we know not all articles have the same format, and looking as such it has not confused a single person thus far. With your every article must be the same argument is contradictory to previous arguments. Including when you wanted SD and ECW back to US names, and saying they shouldn't be changed. Changing made consistency, but you were against it. Then there other such arguments. Consistency is good, but sometimes there is no reason. Articles sharing the general idea is good, but arguing over a simple statement is ridiculous. Let it go man, it is point of view. I used that statement because I felt it sounded and worked better when I wrote it. Honestly, you just change it because you are against the out of universe movement and want anything even closely related to wrestling jargon. And surprisingly, both phrases are used in wrestling. This is wrestling not tennis, please stay on subject.-- Will C  01:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC) How did you prove any of them wrong? Seriously explain that. Also you didn't explain how it was correct, and also you described the same situation with standard wrestling match. No one but you has objected to it, so that means it would be considered default as well. Either can be used.-- Will C  01:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of you just drop this, both ways are correct in their own way and Wikipedia in most places does have consitency issues anyway, so just drop it. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey!
Read what I added on Talk:First Flight High School.--Daniel L. Barth (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC) I used to live in Penfield, New York. Do you work at Kodak? Do You know about Panorama Plaza?--Daniel L. Barth (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Survivor Series
Two matches have been confirmed for Survivor Series. Just because YOU don't know about them yet, doesn't mean they aren't confirmed. Killa Koz (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice one BK, you're still wrong Killa Koz (talk) 03:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, So the Big Show saying he is the #1 contender which is the reason why he betrayed RAW last night meant nothing!? Epic logic. Killa Koz (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Survivor Series (2009)
I just wanted to let you know I reverted your edit on this page and added a source, feel free to check the source, I've even added a quote on the source. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 03:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Daniel L. Barth
I commented on the kodak section you added. I hope nobody vandalized what I wrote.--Daniel L. Barth (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WWE TLC
We might be in a sticky situation here. I also smell sockpuppetry. -- Θaks ter   14:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Survivor Series 2009

 * 1. WP:3RR says: "a user who makes more than three revert actions (of any kind) on any one page within a 24-hour period, may be considered to be edit warring" so that editor is in violation.
 * 2. There is no such consensus listed. The guidelines on WP:PW state: "Please do not add any matches you may have heard on the internet or during tapings, without a reliable source, such as the company's official website or Wrestling Observer Newsletter."  The source provided for the match is listed under WP:PW's Proven Reliable section.  Having the match listed does not go against any project guidelines that are listed.
 * 3. Per WP:Spoiler: "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality"

It is WELL within the rules of both Wikipedia AND WP:PW for the match to be added. Thank you and have a nice day. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. That users last three edits on that page were reverts of the same information so I am NOT wrong on that account.


 * 2. Please show me where a consensus was made. The established rules of the project as listed on it's Style Guide page contradict your claim that a consensus was made somewhere.  I can only go by what is written and as it is written, you are wrong.

YOU are the one who doesn't want to listen or follow the rules. I have presented to you the rules in this case as they are written and you choose to ignore them and make up your own. I do care about accuracy as the information I am adding IS accurate. This is not a case of lack of patience. It's a case of adding accurate, sourced information and having people like you come along and start making up their own rules to keep information they don't want from being added. In this case, you are the one who doesn't care about accuracy. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The most recent discussion I can find on Spoilers is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_28#Proposal:_NEW_Spoiler_Templates. After reading it and doing further research I've found that even if you are able to find a discussion where this so-called consensus was made, it doesn't matter. The "rules" of an individual project can not override the rules of wikipedia as a whole. Any consensus to remove or hide spoilers in violation of WP:Spoiler. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the spoiler rules it actually said that editors should have an encyclopedic purpose when posting them. What encyclopedic purpose do you think he has for using spoilers to put up incomplete information early?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

signature
Yeah, I didn't sign them because contributions to wrestling pages isn't really my forte. --IsaKazimi (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok...
You are coming at me like you I am a newbie. I have been on Wikipedia for three years. I can provide a source for it, but its a video on YouTube from the Pro Wrestling Report doing their honours. Plus you never even bothered to look for a source yourself. There are a lot of stuff unsourced on Wikiepdia. Nevertheless, if this doesn't satisfy you than whatever. Mr. C.C. (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Pro Wrestling Report is well respected news and information program on professional wrestling. They have been around for 11 years.  Just because you don't think its notable doesn't mean it isn't.  You are just one person and you don't speak for everyone who edits professional wrestling based articles.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 09:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Still, two people is not the consensus for the pro wrestling editors as a whole. Until you can get a good number of people in agreement, than there is no reason for not having it.  Plus, aren't you the one who got the Chuck Taylor article deleted once upon at time because you thought he has no notability?  But again, you need more than just yourself and one other person because truthfully, you are not the voice of for all pro wrestling editors.  You may not consider it notable, but ten, twenty, or thirty others might.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever, you do have a history of thinking you are the end all to be all of editors within the pro wrestling scope. See you can't prove they are not notable.  Again you need more than two other people to back you up.  I'm trying to enhance articles with something, but you obviously like to take the piss.  Good job man.  Mr. C.C. (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

WWE RAW
Hi, I have a source that WWE Raw's theme song is Nickelback's "Burn It To The Ground", that confirms what I have wrote so it is correct information! http://www.wrestling-radio.com/?view=newsitem&hline=13599 JamieBrighty (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

PS3 sales source
You're right. I should have checked it before I used the one from the PS3 article. Thanks for the correction. ★ Ffgamera  ★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 08:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Demo '04
While I support the PROD, JFAC is not a minor band. I may work on merging the article with the band's article.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 02:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

RE:
Um... the source used both times was PW INSIDER. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to look again, sir. It was PW Insider. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
I've started a thread about you at ANI, see here.  iMatthew  talk  at 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely your final warning
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Per the ANI discussion, I've seen more than enough to block you. This is your absolute last warning. Any more personal attack / incivility and you will be blocked. If someone is incivil towards yourself you do not reply in a similar manner. If someone is persistently uncivil towards you then there are channels to deal with it, such as ANI. Mjroots (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that it will not be necessary to implement the block. It may pay you to (re)read WP:BITE and absorb what it says. Expect newbies to make mistakes. Instead of biting their heads off, give them some gentle guidance as to what they are doing wrong and how they can do it correctly. For example, A new user was recently trying to create redirects in an inappropriate way. The "redirects" were quickly tagged for speedy deletion. I declined the speedy and converted them to redirects, and gave the editor suitable advice on how to create redirects on his talk page. That way, the new editor has learnt a little about how Wikipedia works and hasn't been scared away by being bitten. Mjroots (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Music of the Final Fantasy series
Hi, your edit to Music of the Final Fantasy series broke that page's references, because it added to the article, when another was already present and contained all the references. Could you please make sure this doesn't happen again? If this is a bug in AWB, could you please report it? Svick (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The same thing happened with your edit to Music of Final Fantasy IV. Svick (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Popful Mail
Thanks for the cleanup edit to Popful Mail. However, check your AWB settings or whatever you used to edit: it turned the infobox "developer" attribute to "eveloper", and changed "rumours" to "rumors" (both are legitimate, and the article was started with British English so I've tried to keep that for now). Were those intended? (Again, thanks.) --an odd name 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Spyke...
Tonight on iMPACT! did you not hear that they have disbanded? Watch the Traci vs Alissa Flash match. They reference it several times. They state that Scott Steiner is the only member. You CANNOT have a one man stable. They're done. Accept it.--KingMorpheus (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Date and Accessdate tags in citations
Maybe you're just not aware of this but the date formats in citations have to be uniform through out an article, so when you change SOME dates from "June 1, 2009" to "2009-6-1" you are actually not improving the article at all. I've reverted three articles today where they all had the "June 1, 2009" format through out and then changes SOME to 2009-6-1. If they're all consistently one way or the other leave them alone! If they're mixed by all means change them to whichever is the most used format but otherwise you're not being helpful.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk 08:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You definitely succeed in sounding rude - especially considering I actually expand articles, I don't just go around changing the date format for no other reason that "TJ Likes it better" and then get all bitchy about it, instead I try to actually contribute instead of changing stuff already there to my preferences.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk 19:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

So it's helpful to make the date format inconsistent? it's helpful to change the name of a title in the citation to something other than what it was? It's helpful to have it be "last name, first name" when full name already did the same dang thing? You're right then I'm not helpful at all. I guess I could go around and change the date format to an American-centric format instead of one that is clear to everyone after all 2009-06-07 is not the same to people in the states or Europe. So no I'm not helpful like that at all. Don't bother responding, I don't give a crap.  MPJ-DK  (40,4% Done) Talk 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:201.34.117.218
I did not add numbers in the article, only the theme song and the official site and put no more sources. 201.66.165.123 (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

List of best-selling video game franchises
Can you run AWB cleaning again on it? I reverted your changes to fix changes done by an anonymous. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent AutoWikiBrowser edits
Hi, can you please be a bit more careful with your AutoWikiBrowser edits? This edit changes dates in a UK article to a format rarely used in the UK, and on the same article a day earlier you changed correct links to X360 magazine into links to Xbox 360. Thanks,  Mi re  ma  re  01:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Date format
Can you please refrain from unnessary date format changes as you have done here. Thanks. SunCreator (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:TNA Wrestling.JPG)
 Thanks for uploading File:TNA Wrestling.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 "file" 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 "File" 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.  Zoo Fari  02:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your AWB script
"Hope" is spelled with an E. ^_^  æron  phone  home   04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB
Hi. When using AWB please provide a more descriptive rationale than "hope you don't mind". Personally I'm unable to find a reason for your change, so a more informative edit summary would be appreciated. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Keelan123
I didn't have time to dig through all of his wrestling related edits to determine if this was a "vandalism-only" account, so I elected to block for the usual 31 hours. If he continues to make those edits again, please let me know and I'll research all of his edits. Kuru talk  01:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

We need help
Vandalism in Survivor Series (2009) - тнєѕαℓχ -  tคlк  -  ¢σηтяιвυтισηѕ  01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of WWE Champions
Pretty much I try to update the dates so its less confusing as to how it the dates come across, I even go ahead and update the List of Combined reigns so it fits with a better format, but you come along and revert all of that, so basically fuck you and your retarded formatting beliefs. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

RE your message
Thanks for the heads up about that. Was hoping it would be indefinite as the event is a while off (therefore vandalism will continue for a long time), but fair enough. I'm just hoping the protection lasts longer than a day. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can imagine wrestling PPVs are vandalised in a similar vein. I think I've made it clear that it will be a second page protection, so although it isn't indefinite, it would hopefully be a longer amount. Once again, thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeri-Show
TJ do you know what to do the Jeri-Show page has been readded today so I read it and noticed that they still aren't noteable so I tried to relist it in the articles for deletion but all that came up was the debate the ended yesterday so help please.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:J Milburn/Non-tagged D&D related articles (no redirects)
Heya! :)

Actually, I don't "mind" anyone going through those lists (I say "I", because they were created for me at my request, and I've been working on them for a while). It's a time consuming project, but I've been using it to go through and identify Dungeons & Dragons-related articles and redirects (most are either tangentially or only related after a few degrees of separation) and remove the 90% or so that are not directly related. :) I think all of the ones that you caught can be removed from the list - anyway, I would have caught them eventually but those are a few obvious removals. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Royal Rumble
Sorry..I must have gotten confused. I thought I was reverting that.--Christopher Kraus (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Ged UK  21:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels
Hi, I'd like to express my opinion about a new D-Generation-X section on Shawn Michaels, because the way I see it, this is no longer Various feuds. This is a legendary tag-team reuniting, and he isn't in a feud with Triple H is he? He's teaming with him. Please answer on my talk page. Thank you for yor attention--The Celtic Cross (talk)  12:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. you're right, I'll propose it right now :D--The Celtic Cross (talk)  14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've noticed that you keep reverting my edits, but when I gave you an answer on the talkpage, you no one answered, nor did anyone on WT:PW. I don't want to start an edit war, so I think it's best if you answer--The Celtic Cross (talk)  16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Go3636 bug in AWB
Have you only be doing general fixes or something more? Can you send me your settings file? I can't reproduce the bug. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am referring to your report in Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs. Does the bug still occur in 4903? Can you reproduce on demand? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you using the normal substitution? Any chance that this articles had any non-unicode characters or something? -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reedy and I now think it's a .NET FW bug. Can you please write us your .NET FW version? You can find it in AWB in Help->About. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions
What problem do you have against showing who is who on posters? That is what the caption was added for when I brung it up months ago. To show what the image is and of what.-- Will C  21:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not insulting the intelligence, and even if I was, who gives a flying fuck? Half the ones who come on here can't read anyway. It is to be clear, and with a poster of three people, with two on the same side, who comes first would be the question. Trying to assume, just makes an "ass out of u and me". To be safe, showing who is who should be placed in, to be clear. Nothing wrong with it. It is done for countless film articles at times. It should be done for all of them, poster, dvd, etc. Name a good reason, besides you don't like it. No guideline against it, and so called insulting intelligence isn't a guideline even if proof was given it does insult intelligence.-- Will C  21:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly I don't see how that is checkmate. You named a few articles out of thousands of articles, yet still not proven how I'm insulting intelligence or how it isn't needed. Ugly has never been a guideline, always been a one-legged excuse for people who just don't like it. When it comes down to it, people would like to know who is who when they don't know either. You can't refute that fact. Thus it is right to make sure there is never a problem with an article. Not assuming, not making excuses, just improving. Insulting intelligence isn't a problem, even if said act was in existence.-- Will C  00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said anyone was a moron. However, the compromise done is good enough. As long as it is shown in what order it is presented. It sayed who is on the poster beforehand, but not in which order. Doesn't matter the norm. Relying on ideas that may or may not be universal is not helpful. This way, there probably will not be a problem.-- Will C  00:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To keep it universal, so ips don't whine over everything.-- Will C  02:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Overuse of DEFAULTSORT
From DEFAULTSORT, "There is no need to use it if the default sort key is identical to the article name."

Please see if you can program your bot to not add the DEFAULTSORT tag if it's not going to be any different from the article's existing name. Thank you.  æron  phone  home   06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

General issues with bot-based changes
Additionally, a lot of the changes made by your bot, specifically to the Dance Dance Revolution articles don't seem to be worth making and make no sense. For example, what is the rational for changing "PlayStation" to "PS" or "arcade" to "ARC"? Excessive abbreviation needs to be avoided as it is generally seen as sloppy/difficult for a layman to read/unencyclopedic. There are other similar changes that don't seem to be productive or an improvement to the article (regardless of the state they may be in). I suggest letting a panel review your bot and the changes you've programmed it to make before allowing it to continue.  æron  phone  home   06:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Moon move
I didn't even think about it not being seven days yet. ChaosMaster16 closed it as "keep as is", since the discussion has clearly lead to "move", I changed it. I forgot it's only been four days :P ~ ς ح   д r   خ є  ~ 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, should really read up on WP:TPG ~ ς ح   д r   خ є  ~ 22:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dance Dance Revolution articles
That still does not explain why those edits were made in the first place. Arcade to ARC looks bad, so does replacing all the image captions with the equivalent of "Boxart.". Didn't know that listing the subsidiary involved in a product's release was bad. There are people that want to know that information. And the rest of the stuff you mentioned that actually makes sense is pretty harmless. I agree that work needs to be done and I've tried many times to enlist help from other editors, but logging out and IP undoing my changes and letting a bot make crude passes over a series of articles is not the way to do it. Get down and use your hands to edit if song titles in all caps bothers you that badly otherwise leave the articles alone. They're in bad enough shape without you making a bigger mess.  æron  phone  home   04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Spelling
Okay, sorry. I didn't know. Manadude2 : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;">Talk 23:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

List of Saw media
Hey there, I noticed you placed a tag on the VG Chartz references on the List of Saw media article. While I realize that VG Chartz is an unreliable source, it does state that:

"While referenced in reliable sources, site's own methods of extrapolation and adjustment without source referral mean site is possibly unreliable by a large margin in estimates. If possible, replace with NPD Group or Enterbrain numbers for US and Japan, respectively."

Seeing as there is literally zero other sources for sales figures, not even outdated or flat wrong figures, this means that VG Chartz should be acceptable until something else comes along. Myself, User:Micwa, and User:Teancum had a discussion about this very reference for the Saw (video game) article, FOUND HERE that discusses this issue. Do you agree with this? If so, please remove the tag from the article as soon as possible. Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay that makes sense. So, because there is NO source for this, should we remove this information from List of Saw media altogether? As for the Saw (video game) article, I wrote it as such: "While these figures have not been challenged[citation needed], the NPD Group, a more recognized news and video game authority, has yet to verify these sales numbers." Does this help or should this information be removed from that article as well? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahaha I'm sorry to be informal but this is hilarious. Saw (video game) is currently a GA nominee and List of Saw media is currently a FL candidate. So yeah, lets go ahead and remove those :D GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Really? Thanks I hope so. I went ahead and entirely removed both sets of sales info for the game. If you're not too busy, would you GA review Saw (video game) and/or contribute to the FLC review page for the List of Saw media? That would be greatly appreciated if you had the opportunity. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Gail Kim
The user was talking about info (that has obviously been removed since then) that went against the usual documentary format for the article and the user him/herself admitted to not even removing despite its harmfulness. The user's comment was, in a nutshell, pointless, hence why I removed it. PCE (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

WM23 attendance

 * I always prefer to handle all editing disputes on the page. But that will be difficult if no one responds seriously to the specific guidelines set forth by the establishing sentence of WP:V, which I have quoted twice.
 * On that WrestleMania 23 talk page, you wrote, "the burden of proof is on someone to proof a source is reliable (not for others to prove its unreliable)." Yahoo News synthesizes many major news outlets, and is an established, commonly used reference source on Wikipedia. Several of its sports columnists have been deemed notable enough to merit their own biographical Wikipages. A substantial number of quotes, references and links from Yahoo Sports personnel are already being used in numerous Wikipedia articles. The burden of proof appears to have been met. Is this not so?
 * I believe the text has no POV issues, and the WWE's higher profile claim remains intact. But if there is some other wording or context you consider preferable, I am more than amenable to discussing your editing suggestions. I've already taken your cue regarding the infobox template. But I don't see how the deleted text and refs aren't properly supported by the WP:V standard, and thus far no editor has appeared interested about addressing it. Perhaps you will. Thanks.208.120.152.75 (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * MAYBE it can be mentioned that Yahoo CLAIMS that is the number. Any wording will have to make it clear that it's not true, it's only a claim made by Yahoo.  TJ   Spyke   22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, because any wording like that would run afoul of both original research and neutrality. I'm not sure why this contention over headcount would, or should, be treated differently than it is on Wikipedia's page for Wrestlemania 3. There, the lower claim is mentioned in conjunction with the official claim, in passing. Can you explain how the previous, deleted wording fails to live up to Wikipedia standards, or clashes with editing precedent?208.120.152.75 (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is doubtful? The only thing that is doubtful is Yahoo's claim. Both WWE and Ford Field say one number. Yahoo offers no proof that their number is correct, so the only accurate thing to do would be to say Yahoo claims that is the correct number. It would be deceitful to act like it is correct.  TJ   Spyke   00:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What is doubtful is that anything along the lines of "Yahoo Sports made the 100% untrue claim that..." could ever have satisfied Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, or original research. Your suggestion-- to say that Yahoo claimed a lower number as correct (without making any declaration of fact)-- seems like the most sensible solution.
 * I've made an edit based on your guideline. I also did some minor text smoothing.  Take a look at it and see if it's satisfactory to you.  Thanks for your input.208.120.152.75 (talk) 04:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dexter, Wisconsin
I opposed the request to move Dexter, Wisconsin to Dexterville. There is an unincorporated community of Dexterville, Wisconsin located within the town of Dexter. I just started that article. Please see: Political subdivisions of Wisconsin it will give you more information I hope this helps-Thanks-RFD (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

List of country subdivisions
I like what you did with Friendly on the page but I don't understand how it worked. I've only used Friendly to welcome new users.

Warmest Regards, :)--thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis23
I noticed your comment on the WIKI Project talk page this isn't the first time he as changed comments to change them to support his cause. I think its time we bring this to the attention of the Admins if i knew how to do this i would do this myself. He as been give a number of warnings to stop but he as not.--Steam Iron 04:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't I didn't do that on purpose.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to butt in TJ, but Curtis you clearly did this on purpose. Tony2Times (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yah but that was over 2 months ago you can't use that.--Curtis23 (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

WHC
TJ, we have discussed this before. Quit reverting to incorrect version. Match types are not notable unless something significant happened. Per numerous recently passed FLs, the article should have everything linked, small template should not be used, and match types should not be listed.-- Will C  00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was agreed to remove it. And having everything linked and only having significant match types involved is the standard today. The standard which you do not understand. The standard developed through countless FLs gotten by MJP, Truco, and myself.-- Will C  01:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those formats are old. They would most likely fail the current FLR process. The criteria has changed since those were expanded.-- Will C  04:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked you for 24 hours for an obvious violation of 3rr in List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE). Secret account 17:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

afd
you were involved in a afd about this article before, so you might wanna read Articles for deletion/Star Wars sequel trilogy (2nd nomination) thanks Starwarsdeathstar (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Boldface
It may be your opinion that it looks better but there is actually a guideline which this does fall under which I will gladly direct you to MOS:BOLD, and single column highlighting is generally used in current FLCs, the ECW title was approved back in June 2007, its obvious that times have changed since then and it is important to bring all current pages up to modern standards not the standards of 2007, let me bring you an example of a current FLRC List of Swedish football champions, this was promoted back in September 2006 just because it is currently a FL doesn't mean we should maintain the format of 2006 what should be happening to the page is it being brought up to current standards not being left as it is just because it was promoted with that format, all I'm doing is trying to keep articles up to date. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk
 * First the bolding obviously is a part of it which is why I brought it up since you did say "I wont change it back for the moment" which does imply rebolding, "what got them promoted originally" once again standards have changed since June 2007, and we only bring up the fact about the FLCs is because every article on Wikipedia should strive to be a Featured Article or a Featured List so naturally keeping up with the current standards is important. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Check Dabombs comments where clearly states "per WP:COLORS, colored cells should have accompanying symbols (e.g. * ^ †) for accessibility reasons." so per this only a single column should be highlighted with being accompanied by a symbol.  Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 23:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information.", once again "(e.g. * ^ †)" and its a simple assumption if the color has to be accompanied by a symbol placing symbols as such would be stupid:

and if by you saying "Even if he did say that, then that would means the "days held" column would get highlighted too." you're referring to it needing to be in bold, I will gladly redirect you (for at least the 2nd time) to MOS:BOLD. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't because that example looks completely ridicules and if anything overuses the Symbol, and pretty much a Key like here should be added to the articles anyway to illustrate what the '+' means, and pretty much I honestly get the impression you are refusing to submit to anything hence why you thing the example looks good. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No I actually gave you exactly the answer you needed and you obviously refuse to accept it, I even gave you a link to a quote from someone who's a Featured List director who said what the correct styling should be and if you bothered to look into the link I provided you he lists this as a perfect example for highlighting but you still refuse to accept it. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many times you asked me, I still gave you the answer you were looking for and I've already pointed out to you and given you a quote from WP:Colors which illustrates why it can be applied to this situation which I'll give it to you again "Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information." which if you bother to read it means that you can't just highlight something using the color there needs to be another method, and it clearly states on WP:Colors that its for the benefit of the blind and those who still don't have color printers, and he clearly didn't give me any reasoning I'm not Will if you actually bothered to click the link, and if you actually really even bothered to look at the front of WP:FLC then you can clearly plainly see "The FL directors, Dabomb87..." which is clearly the answer you were looking for yet you continue to reject it, I am trying to discuss this with you immaturely and civilly and I don't appreciate you calling me an ass. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 02:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't disputing that it shouldn't be used, you're just obviously disputing that the symbols and how many columns it spans, I am trying to discuss this please tell me how my comment up above isn't discussing this issue, the fact you almost can't remember what you write when its right above on my talk page I'll quote it again "For the moment I won't change it back" directly relates to which if you look contains bold so because we are discussing something which does correlate to your edit how could I not bring it up, and hell I gave you the answer you were looking for it doesn't matter how many times you asked and you can answer to me how that direct proof of what it should look like isn't proof because it clearly is and it comes directly from an FL Director, and you could've fooled me considering the fact you were ready earlier to undo my edit to your previous one which includes the bold and one column highlighted, and once again I don't appreciate the incivility as its obvious that Palin joke was a shot at me, now you are detouring this conversation to where you're obviously just trying to throw these shots. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 02:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 03:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

What's up?
You seemed to have stopped the behaviours that led to your earlier and somewhat inglorious block record, is there some reason that you find the current dispute particularly hard to handle? It's disappointing when someone who has taken action to fix what seemed to be a death spiral, comes back onto the radar. I'm guessing there must be some reason for it that we're not seeing on the surface. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)