User talk:TJ Spyke

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 24. Archives prior to February 10, 2008 (Archive 16) were compiled by Werdnabot/Shadowbot3 and can be found at the right hand side of this page. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Hey

Hey TJ. Sign into Windows Live, I need to talk to you about something. Cheers. Save Us.Y2J 1:45, April 27 2009 (UC)

Lockdown

The best way to do this is to leave them outside of the table. That way we can move them with ease. Also we avoid having problems such as OR, Crystal, etc if you see where I'm going. We've talked about this before remember.--WillC 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There was no agreement what so ever on either. The reason they put them in WWE ones is Truco made everyone. The ROH ones get no notice. It is OR, tell me how it isn't. My warning is as well. Mine were funded on polocies. And I'll tell you now, if you revert a single editor one more time on that page, I will ask for you to be blocked. You have violated the 3RR I have not.--WillC 01:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, what is wrong? You seem pissed off at me like I did something. I feel we should follow the policy we've always followed. Go one by one, the same way they did with WrestleMania just two weeks ago. The only reason I don't use the table before events is it is easier to move with bullet points. You yourself from what I understand like that over the table. How have I pissed you off for you to have become pissed at me and giving me false warnings? Tell me. How?--WillC 01:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you mine to answer the above, please?--WillC 01:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sorry if I worsened that bad mood. That was not my intention. Was making sure the article followed polocies considering the article usually ends up being shit during the show. I'm just trying to find the best way to have the article. How about we make a compromise? Before the event we have the matches as bullet points. You don't like the table and I don't like the table before the events because it gets in the way, is easier to use bullet points, and will have to be re-done when the event comes. During the event we'll list all matches in the table. Give no number like last night and that will be all. You were never for the table and I'm still not sure about it. Sound good? No one even watches the TNA events, so I never thought that the bullet points would be a problem.--WillC 02:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the consensus for the table is this, we list "results". Was never to my knowledge was it to be used before the event. Was always to afterwards. Truco just started to place it end when they announced the matches and people followed. I even remember seeing it done for the first time and asking myself, was it supposed to be used before events? When I knew it was not. So I never said anything and just used bullet points on the TNA stuff. I'm just hoping they never go back to that. There are a few new ones editing the TNA stuff. But not much. In my eyes, the project is still Wikipedia:Project World Wrestling Entertainment and other shit.--WillC 02:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you unwilling to discuss?

Why are you not willing to discuss the linking in the Mickie James article? And example of what I mean: :...Stratus' biggest fan turned obsessed stalker..." You want linked to the wrestling term "turn". However, the common English use of the word "turn" is to change. How does that differ from the wrestling definition. Terms like kayfabe.....yes, those are unique to wrestling and those links are appropriate. But linking words like "turn" really don't clarify anything to a non-fan, it just adds more blue type to an article that is already awash in it. Further, linking common words like "farm" don't enhance the article. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. Next, you keep re-adding links to things like "American", leading to the article about the United States. The overlink policy cites that as a specific example of what NOT to link. Links to locations, words etc that people commonly understand aren't needed. So no, Washington DC really shouldn't be linked. It is a location known to most readers. How many English speakers don't know what the United States is? Or what New York City is? Lastly, sending readers to generic articles doesn't enhance understanding this article, which is the purpose of linking. Does sending someone to the article about DC enhance their understanding?

I termed your wholesale reversion as "vandalism" because you aren't talking about specific things, but simply clicking undo. I have asked TWICE to discuss and you simply ignored it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• You stated that US should be linked in the intro. From wp:overlink, an example of United States being linked in an article about supply and demand: "do not link to the "United States", because that is a very large article with no explicit connection to supply and demand." There is no explicit connection to Mickie James in the article about the US. And again I ask, what English speaker doesn't know what the United States is? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Again, the basic question: What English speaker doesn't already know what the United States is? In any case, as I've stated in the discussion page, this WAS to be my first step in improving the article to submit for GA status. Overlinking is one thing that gets looked at. But you clearly want to fight about every word involved and I'm not going to get into some pedantic dispute about every single word. As I said, I was careful to delink by section so that someone wouldn't have to do a massive reversion of everything, like you did. In any case, I'm done. Let someone else pursue GA status for the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Cause 2

Hello there. Just a friendly reminder not to template regulars. Also, the Just Cause 2 artwork doesn't not have to be proven false, it has to be proven true. You can't "prove" that something like boxart is false anyway, with no confirmed release date, I think it's safe to say the boxart is placeholder stuff generated by game sites or retail. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think a revert, with an edit summary, and the fact that I've commented on the talk page, deserved a vandalism warning. Also, not to be a WP:DICK, but WP:DTTR actually says a personal warning works better, not that users should still be templated if they've warranted it. As regards the boxart, the fact that Eidos/Avalanche haven't announced any platforms, yet the original version of the boxart shows "only on 360", is enough to confirm it as user generated. Also, I don't think just because Amazon has box art is reason to trust it and add it to the wiki article - Amazon's God of War III page has boxart, but it's clearly placeholder. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Sorry, I still don't see why not having proof that something is false is reason to add it - WP:BURDEN says something has to be proven to be true. You haven't addressed the fact that the boxart had "Only on 360" on it. Likewise, as I've noted above, just because Amazon has a boxart does not mean it's the actual boxart. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ur, so you're saying that anything that comes from Amazon is ok because Amazon itself is a reliable source? So it's ok to use Amazon's Borderland's boxart because it exists (despite it not having a confirmed release date)? What about the release date Amazon states? Is it ok to use that? Not all information on Amazon is confirmed and true. You also still haven't answered the point I've made about the JC2 art being fake - it has "Only on 360" on it, despite no platforms being confirmed. If you still feel strongly about this, I think I'll bring it up at WT:VG. Thanks! Fin©™ 17:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I brought it up on WT:VG, sorry for the delay (didn't realise you weren't going to reply). Feel free to chip in! Thanks! Fin©™ 18:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Carly Colón → Carlito Colón

• Will this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling#Move_request_at_WP:RM be solved any time soon, because I support the name change? Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Mania 23 BS

TJ, I just did a Whois on 75.89.11.42 and 98.17.138.239 and it's the same provider - and then a Geolocate was the same as well. Likely the same person. FYI. !! Justa Punk !! 11:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yo

The Source will evantually be on there.It was announced on Impact when Tickets go on Sale May 8th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs)

If they did, it will be on TNA's site later tonight. TJ Spyke 02:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dude,your better then that.Don't a douchebag Ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forrestdfuller (talk • contribs) 02:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize

Thank you for voicing your opinion on my request to move the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" page. I'd like to point out that I responded, explaining why I think neutrality is a clear problem and why there ISN'T a clear question when it comes to "common usage". Again, thank you! --kittyKAY4 (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry for changing the WWE Smackdown announcers. I thought it was always to list the Play by Play announcer first. (User talk:A.lanzetta) 03:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

"ECW" is moving back to 10:00PM Eastern/9:00PM Central on Sci Fi beginning May 5, 2009.

ECW on Sci Fi is moving back to 10:00PM Eastern/9:00PM Central beginning May 5, 2009. Please click on the following link: http://www.sescoops.com/wwe/ECW_On_Sci_Fi_Changing_Timeslots_Again_Sexiest_WWE_Divas.shtml and then let me know whether or not this is the reliable source I picked out. AdamDeanHall (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Nick Schommer

You may be interested in Nick Schommer. Grsz¹¹ 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my recent revert

..of WWE Raw. I was a tad slow in hitting the revert button. :) Rockfang (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit

I'd just like to point out, that you made a mistake when reverting me. All I did was copy the hidden warning from one article and place it in Kane's. I did not think anything about the difference between rumor and rumour. I fixed the warning, because it messed up the section header. If you look at your revision, you'll see what I mean. My point is that you shouldn’t revert people without checking. Ive Cena Nuff (talk) 02:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

You're right, you don't need my approval to format it correctly. However, you do seem to need my help with it. So why exactly does rewording things make me a dictator? And I love being accused of never bringing things up on the talk page by someone who never brings up things on the talk page. Anyway, there is no need to say that Rhodes, etc. were in the match because they had no chance at all of winning the title (and it doesn't really matter since Orton got the pin. If Rhodes/DiBiase had gotten it, THEN it would matter). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

And do we really need to go through this every pay per view? I make an edit, you revert it with a snarky comment. I revert you and leave some sarcastic reply, then you bitch about it on my talk page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I love being accused of ownership issues and edit warring by a user who has been blocked for it many times, banned before and even limited to 1RR who I've seen edit warring on many pages. The irony is that you accuse me of not using talk pages when you yourself rarely use them. I also only had three reverts, the first one was me adding the original content. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand something here, so maybe you can help me out. You call me the "dictator of these lists" when in fact I rarely edit them any more and when it is, it's minor fixes or vandalism reverts. You also claim that you don't really care about what happens about this list, and yet, you kept reverting (while, ironically, chastising me for edit warring and not using the talk page) and you admitted that you basically did it just because I made the edit. This is not surprising because it has happened before. Remember List of The Simpsons episodes when I added a production code and you immediately reverted me because not even the mighty Jimbo can add things without sources and yet, you didn't revert a similar edit to the season 20 page or any other of the many unsourced facts added to the page? So, you call me a dictator and you admit you don't care and you don't think you have ownership issues. And yet, you are demanding that others revert me [1]. Isn't that counter-productive? What is the point of a talk page discussion if you are just going to order people to revert what you disagree with? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"I basically just gave my approval to anyone who wants to put it back in." I don't even know where to begin telling you what is wrong with this statement. You obviously don't get what wikipedia is about, perhaps you should start your own website, then you can do whatever you like. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said before...

Thank for contributing to the misconseption(?) that wikipedia is an unreliable source of information. As fin has pointed out something doesn't have to be proven false...it has to be proven true. But apperantly you don't understand that so have it your way. Put potentially false info with an unreliable source on wikipedia for all to see...again. 12.199.45.138 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So amazon is reliable now? I never got the memo... 12.199.45.138 (talk) 00:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)