Screwball23 (talk | contribs) |
Only warning: Defamation not specifically directed on Linda McMahon. (TW) |
||
Line 2,382: | Line 2,382: | ||
Looking at it, you are over 3RR and under the circumstances that is very disappointing indeed, a thread was opened for discussion and still you revert. You are well enough experienced not to need warning about it. I am minded to report you immediately.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
Looking at it, you are over 3RR and under the circumstances that is very disappointing indeed, a thread was opened for discussion and still you revert. You are well enough experienced not to need warning about it. I am minded to report you immediately.[[User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob]] ([[User talk:Off2riorob|talk]]) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
:What discussion? I don't see anything. You should be ashamed of accusing uncited statements when I am offering clear references for you to read. That is closed-minded behavior.--[[User:Screwball23|<font color="0000EE">Sc</font><font color="4169E1">r</font><font color="00B2EE">ew</font><font color="FF6600">ba</font><font color="FFFF00">ll</font><font color="9400D3">23</font>]] [[User talk:Screwball23|talk]] 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
:What discussion? I don't see anything. You should be ashamed of accusing uncited statements when I am offering clear references for you to read. That is closed-minded behavior.--[[User:Screwball23|<font color="0000EE">Sc</font><font color="4169E1">r</font><font color="00B2EE">ew</font><font color="FF6600">ba</font><font color="FFFF00">ll</font><font color="9400D3">23</font>]] [[User talk:Screwball23|talk]] 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC) |
||
== November 2010 == |
|||
[[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px]] This is your '''only warning'''. If you add [[Wikipedia:Libel|defamatory content]] to Wikipedia again, as you did at [[:Linda McMahon]], you may be '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked from editing]] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-defamatory4im --> ''You have been edit warring against multiple editors to include poorly sourced BLP material. Even if such material were properly sourced, it would violate [[WP:UNDUE]]. You have repeatedly reverted other editors without cause, when those editors were attempting to improve the NPOV of the article's wording. You are now (as if you weren't already) formally on notice that any future edit to this article which has the net effect--intended or not, revert or new material, today or some point in the future--of a BLP violation, broadly construed will result in your being blocked for such action. The sole defense against such future blocking will be demonstrated evidence that you have reached consensus for the edits on the article talk page.'' [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:16, 9 November 2010
Little Green
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be looking into that second article sometime this week. I think the history on pro wrestling article is nicely writted, although I bet some people complain about it being relatively unsourced. If I find anytihng to help it out, I will. Thanks for the ideas and the comments.--ProtoWolf 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Why the CM Punk article is "boring"
Because that's all there is to it. Part of the wikipedia mantra on FA's is that if it can survive AfD it can become a featured article and the idea behind making CM Punk an FA started back in September of last year because, unlike articles such as Bret Hart or The Undertaker, this was a significantly less important and visible wrestler. Most attempts to make the article passionate would be seen as NPOV violations and would really be trying to make small things seem large when it's not the point of the article - has he been a world champion? Yes. Has he been a world champion in a television federation? No.
There is no such thing as an "FA that shouldn't be" because an FA does not judge the topic, only the article. If FA's were judged by topic no one would spend time making featured articles on The Bus Uncle, Infinite Monkey Theorem or Japanese Toilet. Noticeably different from those article is that the Punk article is a BLP and as a BLP must adhere strongly to neutrality.
Could the prose be written better? Probably but I specifically can not see how without losing information or really adding things equivalent to weasel words in the article. –– Lid(Talk) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just as a note Montreal Screwjob has yet to be today's featured article. –– Lid(Talk) 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Your Sig
Could you alternate your signature I can't read the L's on your signature.--Hornetman16 (talk) 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Good verse.--Hornetman16 (talk) 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Randy Orton
So I'm supposed to shit myself over what? yeah it's "nice" but dances on the border of being Original Research and has other issues that with the likes of Peacock terms. An example - your interpretation that Orton's participation in the Elimination Chamber showed that he was ready to be a main eventer, that's a subjective judgement - you can't say ALL participants in ALL Elimination Chambers have shown themselves to be ready to main event (Chris Masters??) nor does being in a high profile match always mean that you are ready. It's your interpretation, but this is an encylopedia it's not a wrestling profile site. Look I'm not saying this to be a bitch but from experience of putting articles up for GA or seen other wrestling related articles fail GA because they don't conform to the Wikipedia standards. MPJ-DK 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
John Cena infobox image
Could you please comment on which image you would prefer to be featured in the infobox on John Cena's page. Thanks.-- Kip Smithers 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
the WrestleCrap book
Well the book is basically a longer, more detailed version of the wrestlecrap website which features 2-3 different items a week (or is it month right now?) it does deal with the way the WWE's "family oriented" gimmicks lead to some HORRIBLE ideas (T.L. Hopper the wrestling plumber comes to mind) it also deals with the whole "Crash TV" start with the use of profanity and sex etc although it's the last chapter and not as informative as some of the other chapters.
It's informative and hilarious - and I've used it as a reference more than once.
As for Randy Orton - my main point isn't that I disliked the way you wrote it, I'm just speaking from the feedback I've personally gotten when involved in the "Good Article" process and stuff like that. And frankly I'm not very impressed with a lot of the wrestling articles and not totally surprised that most see them as a joke - I just try in my own way to improve articles one by one. MPJ-DK 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- As for the 80s book - I don't have a scanner and I'm not sure that's even legal as the WWE still owns the copyright to those pictures. MPJ-DK 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If you're interested in reading more about the WrestleCrap book I found a limited preview on google books that has actual pages from it. Check it out if you want to know more http://books.google.com/books?id=50EU6leHbLoC&pg=PA2&ots=BIqo4Qw9ai&dq=wrestlecrap&sig=VtUGEYb9O-TGY5rvlP8gTnjn87I#PPA148,M1
Suggestion
How 'bout adding in the 2007 section a title of "The Legend Killer" or something like that. Because of the legends he's faced this year. Just a suggestion... -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well I thought it might be a good suggestion (since you added some handy titles to the article); but I'll check to see if might work or not. Thanks for letting me know. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Controversy Creates Cash
I'll have a look around the 1998 section and come back to you with suitable refefrences. Davnel03 08:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
- Right, it doesn't say anything specific about the Austin/McMahon fight, but it gives you pretty interesting information that could help with the article:
UNDERNEATH IS COPIED FROM THE BOOK - HOPE IT HELPS YOU! :)
Stone Cold & Shooting the Bird - pg 273
“ | Looking back, the storyline itself was relatively simple by extremely effective. WWE developed a feud between Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vince McMahon. Vince wanted to bring Tyson in as a world-class athlete to shake things up. Austin took exception. All the buzz around Tyson upped the excitement level exponentially. Even to this day, as I go back and look at it, they set the angle up beautifully. They wove in enough reality to get the audience to that important point where they would suspend disbelief. To this day, when I see it, it feels real.
This wasn't a storyline that appealed to a twelve-year-old kid. This was aimed at young males in the workforce, people who'd be upset at being passed over for a promotion, people who'd resent their boss, who had something to prove. It appealed to fans who wished they could spit in their boss's eye. One of the keys to the angle's success was Vince McMahon's decision to put himself out there as the owner of the company, something he hadn't been willing to do until now. And they couldn't have picked a better guy than Mike Tyson to give their show an edge. Tyson had edge, he was dangerous - times ten. The Pay-Per-View helped Steve Austin launch his bad-ass, rattlesnake character to the moon. Everybody wanted to see a wrestler stand up to Tyson and put him in his place, and there was nobody better to pull that off than Steve Austin. Once I saw the tape, I knew we were in deep shit. |
” |
That's it for that part of the chapter, Bischoff then goes onto talk about the post WrestleMania XIV Raw ratings bump. If you really want me to write up that section on here, then I will. Nethertheless, I hope the above helps you. Davnel03 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- Did you manage to use that paragraph anywhere? If you need anything else, just ask. Davnel03 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Re: "zerorules"
Well, I don't exactly "rule", just thought it was a cool name (since I'm a skater). I try my best to help out. Just want to do a good job. And I may take your offer on that sentence or two. P.S. Why do you think I go by "ThinkBlue"? -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject:Terrorism
Greetings,
I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Reversing my History of professional wrestling edits
My edits were meant to clean things up and appeal more to the manual of style. So, I don't know what you're getting at by saying that what I did made things look "dumbed down!" TMC1982 12:44 a.m., 8 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMC1982 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey?!
Check this out... Really, am I? I can't be? **Sigh...** Davnel03 07:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- BTW, thanks for including my ref in the History of professional wrestling page. Oh, also, I don't own that "Are We There Yet" book. According to the Library page, Naha does, so you're going to have to ask her about the information you need. Thanks, Davnel03 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, it was really added by someone else, well a vandal. The edit(s) were reverted about a minute later, and was blocked for 24 hours. Anway if you need to know any more little references to put in the history of professional wrestling article, just give me a shout and I'll try and get it. :) Davnel03 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
List of professional wrestlers who died young
Thanks for the comment, but the list has to be cut off somewhere. Otherwise, it would have to be a list of every professional wrestler who's ever lived, since they all die at some point. So, to avoid that, there has to be an "arbitary" cut-off point, and that's what gets people ruffled.
If you want to create the list yourself in the mainspace, however you want, feel free. You can copy and paste what I have in my user-space and add whatever you want to it. I wouldn't be offended. Skudrafan1 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I've read the article - it looks pretty good! I suggest you try and find somme reviews of the book and possibly add a review section to the article. Also, sources are needed desperately, so hopefully some reviews could add to the references. Good so far! Davnel03 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Are we there yet?
Hey Screw, jsut letting you know I typed up the information you wanted re: Randy Orton, and it is on my talk page. Hope this helps :) --Naha|(talk) 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. The paragraph was interesting, but all it confirms is that the two were good friends.--Screwball23 talk 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Original Barnstar | ||
Your work here is very appreciated. Keep up the good work. Zenlax 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC) |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 6 - October 13 is N/A. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 14.
You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list. |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 14 - October 20 is N/A. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 21.
You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list. |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 21 - October 27 is Hulk Hogan. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28.
You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list. |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 28 - November 3 is Bobby Eaton . Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28.
You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list. |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for November 4 - November 10 is Adam Copeland. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, November 11.
You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list. |
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVIII - November 2007
The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Collaboration of the Week
The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for November 11 - November 17 is World Wrestling Entertainment. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, November 18. From the Editor
Welcome to the inaugural edition of the WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter! I hope this will be a good source of news to those people interested in what's happening around our pro wrestlimg community. I plan to release it every Sunday. This newsletter will just be a way to get the community announcements to people who don't have the time to check the mesageboards, as well that to those just curious about the news. The newsleter will consist of a project news section (to do with what's happening on Wikipedia), and a current events section (relating to news in the "real world"). The newslette will also contain the Collaboration of the Week announcement. That's all. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please post them at this talk page. Contributors to this Issue: Gavyn Sykes — LAX — Nahallac Silverwinds — The Chronic — The Hybrid |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Scorpion, some of your comment at the FAC came across to me as very uncivil. There was no need for that rant. Sorry, but I've put a huge amount of effort into that article, and don't deserve to get comments like that. Davnel03 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- This comment means nothing to me: the rest is probably just as horrendous. How do you know if you haven't read it. If you don't put specific examples of where it is "horrendous" I cannot improve the article. Davnel03 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've addressed your coments about the lead. Would you possibly consider Supporting the article if you have any other comments to make. Thanks. Davnel03 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Davnel03 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for them comments! I have commented back. You will probably want to leave more comments and problems that probably have arisen from the changes. Do you mind if we work through the whole of the article, because I can see that the article is being improved step-by-step. If so, is there any chance you could leave comments on the 2nd feud, which is the Bret/Hakushi feud. I might be wrong, but am I right in saying that the "Event" section probably doesn't pose many problems, just the "Background" section? Thanks again!! :) Davnel03 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you would rather receive a notification of the newsletter sent to you, please add your name to this list. If you no longer wish to receive any notice of the newsletter, please add your name to this list.
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Previous Issue | The Wikipedia: WikiProject Professional Wrestling Newsletter | Next Issue |
---|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XI — February 24, 2008 | |
---|---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Collaboration of the Week
The monthly featured article collaboration for February 24 through March 2 is Mr. Kennedy. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 2. |
Member News
Member Interview
This week's interviewees are Kris Classic (link) and Alex Roggio (link).
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XII — March 9, 2008 | |
---|---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaboration for March 3 through March 16 is Ric Flair. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 16. Member Interview
This week's interviewees are D.M.N. (link) and 3bulletproof16 (link). |
Member News
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XIII — March 23, 2008 | |
---|---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaboration for March 16 through March 30 is Big Show. The featured article collaboration is Kurt Angle. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 30. Member Interview
This week's interviewees are FamicomJL (link) and Naha (link).
|
Member News
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XIV — April 6, 2008 | |
---|---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaborations for March 30 through April 13 are Bash at the Beach (1996) and Mae Young. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, April 13. Member Interview
This week's interviewees are Endlessdan (link) and S-pac54 (link).
|
Member News
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WP:PW Newsletter
Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMatthew 2008 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter
The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter |
||
News
| ||
Archives • Discussion |
Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XV — April 20, 2008 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Project News
Events
Articles for Deletion
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references).
|
Member News
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaborations for April 13 through April 27 are World Wrestling Entertainment and Booker T. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, April 13. Member Interview
Next week we will start the Editor of the Week. This will take the place of the Member Interviews. The EOTW will be given their own interview instead. To be fair, this week we will post all of the interviews that were on the schedule. Click the link next to the user's name to see their interview:
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XVI — May 4, 2008 |
---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
Since the last issue, the number of stub articles has decreased again. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
|
Member News
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaboration for April 27 through May 11 is National Wrestling Alliance. The featured article collaboration is Amy Dumas. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 11. Editor of the Week
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XVII — May 18, 2008 |
---|
Project News
Current Events
Articles for Deletion
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
|
Member News
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaborations for May 11 through May 24 are Chris Benoit double murder and suicide and John Layfield. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 25. Editor of the Week
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XVIII — June 1, 2008 |
---|
Project News
Current Events
The Month in Wrestling History
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
|
Member News
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaboration for May 25 through June 7 is Rick Rude. The Featured article collaboration is Carly Colón. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, June 8. Articles for Deletion
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue:
|
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XIV — June 22, 2008 |
---|
Project News
The Month in Wrestling History
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve.
|
Member News
Current Events
Collaboration of the Week
The article collaboration for June 22 through July 5 is James Yun. The Featured article collaboration is Candice Michelle . Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, July 5. Articles for Deletion
From the Editors
Contributors to this Issue: |
WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
Issue XX — July 6, 2008 |
---|
Thank you for reading WikiProject Professional Wrestling's 20th Newsletter Edition |
---|
Project News
Current Events
The Month in Wrestling History
Professional Wrestling Article Stats
|
Member News
Collaboration of the Week
Articles for Deletion
From the Editors
As I'm sure you noticed above, this is the 20th edition of the WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter! It has come a long way since the first issue, and I'm sure it will only improve from here. I'd like to thank everyone reading this for continuing to read the newsletter, biweekly. I'd like to especially thank those who have helped to get the newsletter to it's 20th edition; The Hybrid, The Chronic, TJ Spyke, Alex Roggio, LAX, ThinkBlue, Nikki311, GaryColemanFan, Gavyn Sykes, D.M.N., Naha, NiciVampireHeart, SRX, Zenlax and, RkOrton. Also, lastly I'd like to thank Misza13, for sending the newsletter out for us, though his bot. His bot has to be the most important part of the process, because without it, the newsletter would not get sent to project members. I know that's a long list, but they all deserve recognition for their hard work towards the newsletter. So again, thank you to that list of people, and thank you to all of the newsletter's biweekly readers. If you have an questions, comments, or feedback about the newsletter, remember those links below. Contributors to this Issue: |
Speedy deletion nomination of Christopher X. Brodeur
Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ospalh (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Linda McMahon
Sure. Basically under the image use policy, we can only have images of living people that aren't copyrighted. The image you uploaded was one made by WWE themselves so we can't allow it as they hold the copyright. For getting free use WWE photos that we can use on articles, there are generally three reliable sources:
- US military websites, due to WWE's work with the troops. You can use this google search page as a guide.
- Flickr photos are also useful as long they have a compatible license attached (here are the list of compatible licenses). This Flickr search page should help you for that.
- Also if you have personally taken any photos of her in real life, you can basically submit the photo here as you are the author and you have the right to do anything with it.
Sadly I can't seem to find any from these sites myself and all the other photos on the article have been taken down for copyright reasons (someone was telling fibs about the podium photo, it was taken off a YouTube video), so sometimes it's very hard to even obtain a free use photo. I hope this helps. -- Θakster 23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- No problem. I am a guy who first watched near the end of the Attitude era and quite a lot have changed since then and I suppose it's kinda mixed right now as clearly I'm not that much of a disillusioned fan to have stopped watching, yet I realised it's not the same as before. I actually don't mind the switch to TV-PG, but I do think that they have pushed the "kid-friendly" elements a little too far beyond the suspense of disbelief in areas (the recent "Little People's Court" being an example). -- Θakster 15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
RE:Linda
Thanks. I have quite a few projects that I am currently working on, but I'll try and give it a look pretty soon. Nikki♥311 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Screwball23, Thanks for your kind words. I looked at the bio and see a lot of references missing in the wrestling section and the political section is really a mess, although it seems accurate as far as it goes. I'll take a crack at the political section and suggest where some of the references are missing in the wrestling section. I'm a bit busy this week but I should have some time next week. Angloguy (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
FA help
Hi there,
I can certainly help you out, though I must warn you that I haven't written a Featured Article in two years and therefore the criteria might have changed that I used to write to. I've got my exams on at the moment, but if you want to send me a message on the 25th about how far you got and whether you think you're meeting the criteria, I'll come take a look for you and see what we can do. Sound fair? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject Elections and Referendums update
After considerable planning, {{election}} has been created. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on the WikiProject talk page. @harej 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:WWEclosingbell.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Adoption
Greetings Screwball23, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'd be careful with negative and/or unsubstantiated information per WP:BLP. WP has become very strict about that. Otherwise, include everything verifiable that you can integrate well. If it becomes too lengthy, break out sub-articles like "Linda McMahon in the 2010 Senate Race." Such depth is a credit to WP and to your efforts. Deletionists love to axe obscure articles, but rarely will large blocks of well-written, well-cited information be deleted within an article. - Draeco (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Smackdownyourvote.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Smackdownyourvote.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:WWEclosingbell.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:WWEClosing_Bell2.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:WWEClosing_Bell2.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Todayshow.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Todayshow.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
File permission problem with File:Verrazano.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Verrazano.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Your images
Hello Screwball23, I saw your posting somewhere complaining about the tagging of your image uploads by User:Melesse. I've looked into it a bit and I'm afraid I find Melesse is generally right. The non-free content criteria are quite strict. In particular, when you are dealing with a public person such as a US politician, we always assume we could get enough free photographs of them; it is then not possible to upload non-free photos of them simply to illustrate they have appeared on such-and-such a type of occasion. Also, with regard to File:Verrazano.jpg, you seem to have been under the misunderstanding that Flickr photographs are automatically free. In fact, most of them are not. You always need to check the licensing details on each Flickr page, which you'll find somewhere in the bottom right corner. Many Flickr photographs are "all rights reserved"; many others are "some rights reserved" with a "non-commercial use only" clause ("cc-by-nc"). Those are all off-limits for us. We can only use those that say "cc-by" or "cc-by-sa". Flickr images are virtually never "public domain", which is yet a different concept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:Linda-hi-rez-7-150x150.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Linda-hi-rez-7-150x150.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:McMahonmailers.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:McMahonmailers.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.
- If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to somewhere on your talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Shawn Hernandez
He did nothing notable on the Texas indy scene. It's ridiculous to break up the TNA section only to get the text "Upon his departure from TNA, Hernandez worked on the Texas independent circuit throughout 2005" in there, when it can be perfectly well placed in the start of the LAX part. The first AAA section should come after LAX if you're going put it in chronological order, so that's the only thing you have on his time between Elite Guard and LAX.TheFBH (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
History of WWE
I don't think you fully understand what is wrong with the edits. I also don't think you understand what's in the refs. First of all my main concern is with the term "PG Era" - a (as you put it) fan coined term - No where in the refs is the term used. You and I both know and cannot deny that the term is only used within the IWC. The use of the term as an official term for this "supposed" era - "supposed" is in quotation marks as I'll explain right now - is Original Research. Why? Because WWE hasn't acknowledge this as a "supposed" era. What it is to them as your reference cited is a simple change in programming. Finally TNA is irrelevant to the subject of the history of WWE and therefore deserves no mention in the article. You are not going to find heavily weighed notes of other subjects in a an article of a single subject unless it is relevant to both subjects. You can argue that the subject of WWE may be relevant to TNA but it certainly isn't the other way around. Even then, the TNA articles make no mention of WWE. If you still strongly disagree, why don't you take this up at WT:PW and let the project decide?--UnquestionableTruth-- 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh the jealousy argument... Listen kid you're way in over your head. Fine you wanna go? lets go. --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Incivility
Please limit your talk page comments to discussion of the content not the contributor. Derogatory comments like these are not appropriate:
This has already been mentioned by another editor on the same page [3] and could be construed by an Administrator as personal attacks. I hope that you can correct this and that we can work together in a harmonious way. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Re: Linda McMahon article
Hello. You left a message on my talk page a few days ago asking me to check out the Linda McMahon article. I've done so this afternoon, and I've got to say that the article seems quite thorough. It has tripled in bytes over the past six months, in large part due to your contributions. For the most part, I think the article is good, though perhaps some sections could be split into their own articles, especially the one on her run for Senate. Such an article would probably be justified already due to her prominent campaign, and ever more so if she should win the GOP nomination.
I have also noticed on the article's talk page that a photo of Linda on the campaign trail might be helpful. Too bad I didn't have my camera with me, because I briefly met her at a dinner in late March. If I happen to run into her again, however, I'll try to take such a photo. I can't make any promises, though. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
re
sigh... I explained it to you before. Then I told you to take it to PW if you still disagreed. PW decided it was barely notable. Then you continued to fight over. Finally, they told you to let it go. Once again, let it go. Consensus stands. --UnquestionableTruth-- 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- ROFLMAO @ how delusional you're acting...--UnquestionableTruth-- 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Once again, I remind you that WT:PW deemed the subject barely notable. If you still disagree, I invite you to restate your case at WT:PW. However please note that your continued defiance of the consensus is disruptive, which is more than enough to warrant a block. --UnquestionableTruth-- 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
May 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on World Wrestling Entertainment. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Curtis23's Usalions 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
WWE Change in Programming
I started a new discussion about it at WT:PW#WWE Change in Programming so you can see that consensus is reached that the Change in Programming doesn't warrant it's own section.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing
Would you thank someone for a oppose comment?--Curtis23's Usalions 23:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
WWE edit warring
Although you are not in violation of 3RR, your edits to this article definitely constitute edit warring. Discussion to reach consensus needs to take place; if problems continue after that, there are obviously other steps to take. Constant reverting violates Wikipedia policy, though. Keep it real, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't care who's right and who's wrong. If you checked, you would see that I left the same message on his page. You need to stop with the edit war, or this will be referred to the Administrator's Noticeboard. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Screwball, until you provide sources to prove notability you are outside WP rules with the edit you are pushing. At present what you are doing is nothing more than WP:OR. Prove what you say is true. Just saying "everyone knows it" is worth absolutely zero on Wikipedia. !! Justa Punk !! 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- You provided no links that were reliable. Therefore it is not notable under Wikipedia rules. Individual opinion of whether or not it's notable is irrelevant. You have to prove that it's notable with reliable third party independent sources. You have failed to do that, and it's why the Project consensus is that it's not notable. You are trying to place your own opinion ahead of the rules of this encyclopedia. I also note that you are having issues with another article for similar reasons re sources AKA referencing. Get the hint - you are doing it wrong. !! Justa Punk !! 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Blumenthal revert
Know what you are talking about before reverting - or ask and I'll help you.Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Stop destroying the Warrior article
You are currently abusing the Wikipedia policy on citations. Cease and desist or you will receive administrator action.--Screwball23 talk 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Wrong answer. I am an administrator and I am responding to complaints from the subject by removing poorly cited or uncited contentious material. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, whatever. Hey, Screwball, here. Get to referencing! I'll be helping out. SilverserenC 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd advise you to stop pushing him, he will block you. He really is in a good mood today, considering he hasn't already. He gave you the ticket complaint number, which means that there was a complaint, so there's nothing you can do. Just focus on referencing what is there and we'll see about the rest later. It'll always be in the history of the page, regardless, if you need it again. SilverserenC 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
CT Senate race
I do work extremely hard on election articles. Thanks. Unless if an election article is very prominent and has a lot of information, only one or two lead paragraphs are necessary. In the case of this election, the primaries haven't even started yet. So the best thing to do is to have one paragraph, simply saying how the incumbent, Chris Dodd, isn't running and how McMahon/Blumenthal are the front runners.
On another note, I'm really confused...Do you understand how the nominating system works in Connecticut?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Hey again. I just wanted to let you know that I'm tying to make the election article as less confusing as possible, which is why I seperated convention and primary candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm getting a little frustrated with you. I don't care so much about whether or not Linda McMahon is the nominee. What I'm getting angry about is the candidate sections. How do people suppose to know who was on the convention ballot and who was on the primary ballot? You keep reverting what I do... and people including myself get confused about what's going on. For example, some candidates didn't get into the primary because they didn't perform well enough in the convention. I don't understand your way of thinking. Why in the world do you oppose seperating the candidates section between primary and convention?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I understand that Blumenthal is the nominee.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
New message
Message added 08:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please don't add all those people to the infobox. The infobox is only for the official party nominee. As of now, there is no official Republican nominee. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I think we've been talking about somewhat different things, which has made for some confusion. The article text can mention that McMahon has the party support. But that infobox at the top of the page is only for official party nominees. The party, simply, does not yet have a nominee as of yet. Maybe the best way, if you feel it's unfair to show Blumenthal in that box and no Republican, is just to take it down until the Republican primary happens. --Muboshgu (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not a Schiff supporter. Quite the contrary, I've noticed that you are clearly a McMahon supporter adding bias into the article. The "rule" that you're referring to about only nominees going in the infobox should be clear in that the line you input on is labeled "nominee", which McMahon is not, unless she indeed wins the primary, which won't happen until August. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Catch this bit of news yet? That is why Linda McMahon should not have been considered a "presumptive" nominee. As Yogi Berra once said, "it ain't over till it's over". --Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
24h 3RR block
I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule, reverting over three times in one 24 hour period. Attempts were made to discuss the issue with you, none of the other editors have breached 3RR - yet multiple users have reverted you and you continued to war with them. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
WWE Re:
I have and I have made comments on the talk page along with others.--Steam Iron 04:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- Screwball, I strongly recommend that you drop this. You claim that you have been calmly discussing matters in effect, but your conduct is bordering of fixated and you are upsetting other editors with this. You have been asked to provide more sources given that you state that there are many articles and reports in your support and you have failed to do so. The sources you have provided are not enough. I can see you being banned again if you persist on your current line as it seems that you are refusing to listen. Your claim that there's a gang after you is only happening because you are the threat to the article and not them. Not because you are right or wrong, but because you insist that you are right and you won't listen when it is proven you are wrong.
- Please. Just drop it. Or answer Justa Punk's challenge and provide the two dozen sources. If there are as many articles and reports as you claim this should be a simple task. If you don't, you will never get your way and unless you want to suffer a long term ban you must drop this. Just some friendly advice. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop splitting the posts. There is one topic under discussion; does the tempering of the recent (in the last 18 months) WWE product constitute a new "era" (that is a distinct from the WWE Universe "era"). As all you are doing is arguing in circles and claiming that other editors are not listening whilst not listening yourself or providing any references to back up your assertion you may find the patience of other editors tested to the point of an ANI report and a topic ban. If you want to make progress offer references to back up your edit, otherwise move on. And don't call me names in an edit summary, your attempt to split the section have been reverted twice. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
3RR, again.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Wrestling Entertainment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. For the record 4:24 21 June 2010 version reverted to, 5:36 21 June 2020 1RR, 17:55 21 June 2010 2RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
- And here is the 3RR report. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Canvassing (part deux)
Keep it up... I mean you've done it before... btw I don't know where or how you see this as a personal issue. Believe me when I personally say it's NOT a personal issue. It's a WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS issue. Also why you think Justa Punk has gone nuts is beyond me. Perhaps its your way of fluffing up the issue for the users you keep canvassing... Hmm. --UnquestionableTruth-- 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A person who has to bolden his complaints, lose his temper, and give lectures on "how wikipedia works" while giving arbitrary commands on 24 refs is not completely healthy. His refusal to join mediation with an impartial moderator is another indication that something is up. --Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A person who has to ask around for multiple admins and different forums is actually the leading indication that someone's panicking. Additionally, RFM is impossible for disputes with multiple parties involved - another indication the someone still doesn't know how wikipedia works... Happy canvassing! --UnquestionableTruth-- 22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Get real. You didn't have the balls to join the mediation and now you want to criticize me for getting third party opinions? I think you know how wikipedia works so well that you are afraid of losing. --Screwball23 talk 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Watch yourself with the Personal Attacks (yet another indication that someone's panicking) or you might find yourself on the wrong end of another block. Finally, as I am sure you were told by another admin, RFM's are not for disputes involving multiple parties... and yet you still don't get it. --UnquestionableTruth-- 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- Get real. You didn't have the balls to join the mediation and now you want to criticize me for getting third party opinions? I think you know how wikipedia works so well that you are afraid of losing. --Screwball23 talk 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
- A person who has to ask around for multiple admins and different forums is actually the leading indication that someone's panicking. Additionally, RFM is impossible for disputes with multiple parties involved - another indication the someone still doesn't know how wikipedia works... Happy canvassing! --UnquestionableTruth-- 22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- A person who has to bolden his complaints, lose his temper, and give lectures on "how wikipedia works" while giving arbitrary commands on 24 refs is not completely healthy. His refusal to join mediation with an impartial moderator is another indication that something is up. --Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- Stop forum shopping; 3O, editor assistance, RFC and mediation is three steps too far. No matter how many people you canvas it will not change the basic fact that the text you want to insert is not up to standards. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
- What standards? You keep mentioning the links to Bleacher report, but the others are perfectly legitimate. I know you are full of it, and your refusal to join mediation has made it clear that you don't want to solve this productively. I spoke with Wasted Time because he has undoubtedly dealt with some creepy and obsessive editors before.--Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
June 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar and the kind words. I hope that they are not premature and that we can all find a way forward together. — e. ripley\talk 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning World Wrestling Entertainment, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
Reply
You are editing against consensus. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- What are you talking about ? The consensus was never established. The discussion has continued, and I am finally talking with an individual who read my references and is willing to talk about the material. The discussion before was just a bunch of emotionally unstable blabber that completely avoided the facts. Please read the talk page and join the discussion on the newest thread.--Screwball23 talk 04:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- Again, STOP canvassing. Begging people to read, and re-read, and re-re-read your argument isn't going to help your case, neither is accusing others of biases simply because they don't agree with you. Stop edit warring. --UnquestionableTruth-- 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This is going to ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
July 2010
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Replaceable fair use File:LindaMcMahon_web_ad.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LindaMcMahon_web_ad.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.
There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
File source problem with File:LindaMcMahon web ad.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:LindaMcMahon web ad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI, generally the nominator does not cast an additional bolded !vote at AFD discussions. If you feel that there is more you need to say, you may preface it with a bold "comment", or just simply say it. Regards, Jujutacular talk 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2
Feel free to take over rest of review/promotion/etc as GA Reviewer. No worries, and thank you! Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply re Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2
I fixed your previous edits. You still need to do the rest of the "pass" steps, laid out at WP:GAN. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Number of leaves
Yes you are right it is not very important information for the lead. Number of leaves is mentioned in section "Description". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I don't think the Linda McMahon article is ready to be a good article nomination. I can give it a pre-review if you'd like. Nikki♥311 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't feel sorry
On a recent edit, you expressed regret at deleting someone's addition to the external links section, feeling it was likely his first edit. There's no need to feel sorry - that IP has been doing a lot of edits, and what a coincidence - they all seem to be adding external links to commentaries by the same author! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
GA Review
At Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Literature you are listed as the reviewer for Codex Vaticanus. The review has been open for several weeks and it appears that work has stalled. Can this review be completed soon? Or is more time required? --maclean (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- You are doing this review right? It's had three reviewers stall out on it already, please finish it... Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you have abandoned tthis review, please have the courtesy to say so on the review page. Otherwise please finish it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Linda McMahon
Hi Screwball, could you better help me understand your position on the McMahon article? I don't see the relevance of a pre-1993 (when she assumed control) trial of a company doctor, especially when the article is about Ms. McMahon herself, not the company. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, however. What do you feel this adds to our understanding of Linda herself? Thanks. Fell Gleamingtalk 15:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
- I must note you've made 3 reversions to this article within 24 hours. In case you're not familiar with the the Wikipedia three-revert rule, you may want to read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 23:47 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Linda McMahon
Hi. Just noticed the battle going on over this article. It's not my fight, but I thought I'd just mention to you it's my cursory impression that Fell Gleaming is beyond 3RR at this point on the article. You might want to be careful yourself, btw; I think - again from a very cursory look - that you might be at 2RR, at least. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
a tip
My experience engaging in and watching editorial disagreements has lead me to believe that accusing the opposition of improper motives only hurts your case, even when - no, especially when - the accusation is accurate. You're not telling the opponent anything they didn't know, and you're not looking to the undecided like you're working from a calm and reasoned position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, that makes a lot of sense. You're telling me my accusations are accurate, but you still want to revert me because I don't know how to play an editorial disagreement? This is a very black day for wikipedia. :-(--Screwball23 talk 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, I'm reverting your mass-reversion because in doing it, you reverted even things that you had agreed to, such as reintroducing much of the ringboy material. I didn't have time at the moment to sort out all of what should be restored and what should not. And no, I was not telling you that your accusations were accurate. I was saying that believing you're telling the truth - even telling the truth - does not make it an effective strategy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Nat's right in his first assertion here, SB. And he wasn't attacking you, either. On the contrary, he was offering valuable and helpful advice. Telling your interlocuter he's biased isn't any kind of effective strategy at all, because no one really thinks of themselves as biased and they just take offense. It antagonizes the person, and regardless of whether the accusation has any truth to it or not, it doesn't generally impress onlookers, either, who always decide such things for themselves. I know you're very invested in this article, but he's right in saying that calm, reasoned disputation is much more likely to have the effect you want, both on the person you're disputing with, and with respect to observers, as well. None of this is meant as any reflection on reverts or on content, btw. I'm not familiar enough with the history here, or with who agreed to what, to offer any opinon on that. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
3RR
Please read WP:3RR as you have now made 3 straight reverts on Linda McMahon and 8 in only four days. Consider this a warning about edit war behaviour on that article. Collect (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Linda
Hi your being reverted by multiple editors, perhaps more discussion is the answer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
ANI enforcement request notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
3RR warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Mcmahon ring.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mcmahon ring.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).
PLEASE NOTE:
- I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
- I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
- If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
- To opt out of these bot messages, add
{{bots|deny=DASHBot}}
to your talk page. - If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Linda McMahon 3RR note
FYI , you are edit warring on the Linda McMahon article, please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
September 2010
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In this edit, you restored material allegedly supported by a citation where the citation did not support that assertion. BLP material must be explicitly mentioned in the citation, and this is clearly not. Failure to exercise more caution in the future will result in your being blocked. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
New compromise
I have a solution to the polling problems!!! Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to the polling, new compromise section.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
3RR Violation
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Let me give you some advice, both as an Arbitration Committee clerk and an editor who has been around for a couple years. There is zero chance that ArbCom will accept this dispute as currently filed. There is no evidence of prior dispute resolution besides communication processes. Generally for this type of thing to progress to ArbCom, at the very least, Deletion Review and a User Request for Comment should have been tried. I suggest that you withdraw your request, speak with a more experienced Wikipedian that you trust to give you good advice, and then pursue Dispute Resolution as suggested on that page. NW (Talk) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hi there. I have removed your case request per the direction of the arbitrators. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 13:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Re: Fell Gleaming
Hi, could you give me an overview and an update in regards to the dispute with FellGleaming? I'm trying to track the problem down and I'm looking for your opinion on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Screwball23 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
HELP!!!
please help me man im new to wikipedia and some guy is bullying me its about the goldberg article please refer to the talk page i know you are a goldberg lover and i know you hate to see him get dissed(especially not by some ip editor)
now some guy called Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian keeps insisting im a racist just cause i called someone a malaysian im telling him im not but they keep saying its indisputable and...
as for the ip editor heres a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:175.144.73.197
he called a xenophobic racist but i only called him ignorant coz he is not looking in the link you put on the talk page to PROVE that goldbergs streak is not KAYFABE i know its not fake coz wcw saturday and some hidden matches like goldberg vs sandman and matches like dark matches were on the down low matches but they still count right?
look up on youtube for the sandman match it was brutal and there was some blood but it was like superman vs singapore can wielding man you gotta see it
i hope you will help and also please request semi protection on the article and please teach me how to do "wikipedia stuff" please coach me TraviaNightmare (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Reply
Hi, Screwball. This is in reply to your post to my talk page. Normally I like to keep talk-page discussions on the page where they begin, but I infer from your talk page that you probably don't follow that convention and that you might not have "watchlisted" my talk page, to make sure of seeing my reply. Thus my reply here. If you choose to respond you can do so right here, on your own talk page; I'll keep this page watchlisted for a while to make sure I don't miss any reply.
I think you need to be very careful to avoid any appearance of canvassing. Your post to my talk page probably doesn't strictly qualify as such, since I've demonstrated some interest in the article, but it's very close. I really don't have a lot to say beyond this; the behavior on all sides has been pretty unfortunate, imo.
There was a non-WP matter that I thought you might appreciate having some info about, however, regarding one of your interests. I wanted to e-mail you about that, but I notice you don't have that function enabled. So if you're interested, feel free to e-mail a quick "ping" to my all-lowercase, all-one-word Wikipedia user name at gmail dawt youknowwhat. ( I'm trying to keep the the evil spam bots away, of course. ) If you have only a personally-identifying e-mail account, feel free to create a generic "throwaway" account at gmail or yahoo, or wherever; it's probably wisest not to disclose one's name or other personally-identifying information to a stranger online, even in e-mail.
I have been and continue to be on something of a wikibreak just now, btw, so I might not get back to you very promptly if you post here, fyi. Btw, you know you're allowed to delete or archive your talk page messages, just as you prefer, right? There's an awful lot of old stuff here that makes navigating the page a bit more cumbersome than necessary. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
FYI - ANI
Hi, your editing has been mentioned in a thread at ANI here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Blocked for 2 weeks
I'm sorry, but your recent behavior, including both personal attacks and edit warring, is unacceptable. You have been blocked three times for edit warring and warned many, many times. Please use these two weeks to think about how to be more civil to others and how to achieve consensus through discussion with other users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
hear me out
i'm new, but just wanted to say you can't go around doing bad stuff on wikipedia. it's bad. so remove it or lose it (yo account). behave now, cuz you gotta Tanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phone Man (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning Linda McMahon, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)
Notice of ongoing discussion
Hi, Screwball. I've made it clear on other pages that I disapprove very strongly of the behavior that you were blocked for, so I won't comment further on that here. And although the ANI thread in which you were blocked has now rolled off to archives, I feel obligated to tell you that there is a related discussion ongoing on the talk page of the admin who blocked you, King of Hearts. Two admins and one user have asked me to provide diffs to support my opinion that you weren't the only one edit-warring over the McMahon articles. I've not taken the time and trouble to do so because I think it's very obvious from just the two articles' revision histories, and also (to speak frankly) because I'm very tired of dealing with the problem. But since you weren't able to respond at all at ANI before you were blocked, you can present any evidence you might like to present here. I'd be willing to inform King of Hearts if you post here, so he could evaluate whatever you might wish to say. – OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
New York City Meetup
|
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.
You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
courtesy note
FYI - BLPN thread - L McMahon - Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
McMahon
Your edit warring the templates, please move to proper discussion and take this as a warning, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- You are not listening to me. Communication here is a two-way street. The template was never justified. I am working 1,000 times harder than everyone else here. I not only researched and then built the section, I put the refs in, and now I'm being challenged because people don't want to read the refs. Instead, I have people claiming that the material is uncited. How does someone handle that? The fact of the matter is, the tipoff memo is factually accurate. Read about Wikipedia's policy on POV - no one has ever raised their so called "disputes" or "objections" to the section, so obviously there is nothing to discuss.--Screwball23 talk 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Looking at it, you are over 3RR and under the circumstances that is very disappointing indeed, a thread was opened for discussion and still you revert. You are well enough experienced not to need warning about it. I am minded to report you immediately.Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- What discussion? I don't see anything. You should be ashamed of accusing uncited statements when I am offering clear references for you to read. That is closed-minded behavior.--Screwball23 talk 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
November 2010
This is your only warning. If you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Linda McMahon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been edit warring against multiple editors to include poorly sourced BLP material. Even if such material were properly sourced, it would violate WP:UNDUE. You have repeatedly reverted other editors without cause, when those editors were attempting to improve the NPOV of the article's wording. You are now (as if you weren't already) formally on notice that any future edit to this article which has the net effect--intended or not, revert or new material, today or some point in the future--of a BLP violation, broadly construed will result in your being blocked for such action. The sole defense against such future blocking will be demonstrated evidence that you have reached consensus for the edits on the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)