User talk:JB196

Credit where credit is due

Going around adding i did this marks to articles is not the way to reference your work. Also, be careful about what you give yourself credit for for the most part OWW only adds move names and not descriptions so anything with a description thats linked can hardly be called your doing.. also this is obvious factual info that can be found on many of wrestling profile sites.. what gives you the right to think they are yours to credit? also isnt OWW submitted work by ppl that post in (which might i add is often incorrect)... most editors check many sources not just your site before adding move lists (and fancruft editors know themselfs what moves are called) --- Paulley 17:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SATs

you claim that this is your list from OWW yet OWW states there signature move as:

The Spanish Fly
Beach Break (Belly2Back Piledriver) (Joel)
Skull Driver (Jose)
Taffy Machine Submission
The Maximo Impact
Multiple Flying Double-Foot Stomps
Boston Crab/Camel Clutch
Double-Team Running Bulldog
Maximo Explosion(Air Raid Crash)
Maximo Overdrive

yet the article's move list reads:

* The Millennium Drop / Spanish Fly (Double moonsault uranage off the top turnbuckle)
* Beach Break / Maximo Explosion (Joel's back-to-belly piledriver)
* Skull Driver (Jose's finisher)
* Maximo Impact (Joel hits a reverse waterwheel drop [back-mounted back-to-belly wheelbarrow] while Jose adds a running neckbreaker to drive the victim's head into the mat)
* Maximo Explosion (Joel hold the victim in a shoulder mount hold while Jose hit a flying DDT foe out of that position)
* Boston Crab / Camel Clutch Combination
* The Washing Machine (Double stretch muffler which sees the Maximos swing the victim over into a face plant)
* Taffy Machine Submission
* Multiple Flying Double-Foot Stomps with the victim being held in a fireman's carry or torture rack position
* Double-Team Running Bulldog
* Maximo Elimination (Combination high and low kicks)
* Maximo Overdrive (Joel's backbreaker into a sit out double underhook facebuster)
* Maximo Velocity
* SAT Stretch (Dragon sleeper / surfboard combination, which can see Amazing Red hit a double stomp off the top rope on the prone opponent)

Some moves listed here (and origional names) dont even feature on OWW.com and nearly all of yours are without description... what gives you the right to claim this is yours???? --- Paulley

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Rory096_(block) 00:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding links

lol, you can type and you known how to use cut and paste.. your fully qualified to edit an external link to the bottom of the page... one good idea would be to cut and paste a reference section from another article and adding it to the bottom of the page (above the categories) then changing the http address to link to your webpage article (i sure you know how to do that). --- Paulley

Other stuff

please add your comments to my talk page not my userpage in future also... i know damn well those moves were not copied word for word from your work...

A: due to the fact its nothing like the stuff you left on my userpage (which was reverted by another user)

and B: Because i looked up all the moves from a variaty of other sources webpages, match reports, and by watching TWC) due to OWW not being much help in this respect..

wait i know where i have seen that list before... that was part of the finishing and signature move page of http://robbo.oeck.net/Stuff/ROH.html (back when it was online in 2005)

---Paulley 10:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i used more than one reference (meaning your list) to compile the information on that page... yes i expect i did origionally look look at OWW and after making update after update and trying to find descriptions of the moves i hopefully did find the robbo.oeck.net as it is a good starting point. but that doesnt by any means give you the right to run around adding brakets with your name in it as if to say "i did this".

have you ever actually thought instead of vandalism maybe your efforts might be better spent using this information you have been building up over the last three years to better wikipedia... why havent you gone through the wrestlers on your lists and fill in missing information... i mean i only recently took a good look at the robbo.oeck.net thing and if you have more information like that then you could actually do some good on some of the independent wrestler pages... --- Paulley 08:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

let see the SAT page for example has a reference to its OWW profile where OWW gets there information is nothing to do with wikipedia... What you are doing is considered vandalism... i have spend years on editing wikipedia yet i havent labeled every page by putting my name in brakets... get over yourself... if you release information into the public domain (fouroms, webpages without copywrite) then it is free to be used within wikipedia. do something useful with your time and do not vandalise pages... it will be reverted and you will be blocked --- Paulley 19:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVDVR

Enough with the edits to the Death Valley Driver Video Review Article: It's not NPOV, and you are projecting your issues with the management to be "hundreds of users:" when it's not. If you want to soften it, maybe we can come to consensus about a statement that is NPOV yet fits your concerns. Thanks.. SirFozzie 15:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about the following statement then.. "DVDVR has created its share of controversey on other wrestling message boards by suspending several folks who post prominently elsewhere." Does that work for you? SirFozzie 21:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is what I put on the Talk page:

(let's not clutter it up with topic after topic). That just won't work because again, Non-NPOV. How about "Several former members, who were suspended for what they consider to be unclear and or arbitrary reasons, have led a storm of criticism on other boards." That gets your point in and gets closer to a NPOV(Just type two colons before your response under this) SirFozzie 11:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for being reasonable :) SirFozzie 03:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why I'm helping you since you decided since you weren't going to have your way with the article, you were going to list it for deletion.. but..

COMMENT-Edited the section to remove what I pointed out was causing your page to be listed. This should work SirFozzie 05:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vote

I don't know anything about the website, though I've done my own checking for notability. Do you think I should withdraw my vote? --Kchase02 (T) 22:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, its up to you. You're not the only one who voted nay so I dunno if it'd even makea difference so...your choice.JB196 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to delete was probably better than you expected, but I don't think it's likely to be deleted anyway. Please, if you're going to have another big argument about the page, keep it off AfD.--Kchase02 (T) 00:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well thanks for doing that. I guess we will see how it turns out...I personally want to know why TheSmartMarks entry was deleted. - JB196 09:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up

First off, thanks for the update to the Death Valley Driver Video Review page. It reads better your way. (not sure about the legal advice bit, but that's a minor thing, live and let live, right? What I was trying to explain is, when I copied over the AfD code for you (and when you restored it after I realized I had screwed it up :)), by putting the AfD code in, it listed THIS page (IE, your user talk page) as a page to be deleted. You can check for yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Pages_for_deletion&from=Rational+Anarchism. Now that the whole thing is over (and btw, maybe if you know enough about the TSM, you could get the page up and written).. you may want to delete that AFD code and take your page off the category Pages to Be Deleted. Have a good one! SirFozzie 05:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused how to remove it. When I press "Edit this page" there is only a couple lines that I can edit and none of it is any of the stuff that was listed (UserJB196, etc. all the ohter pages that are listed at the URL you linked to.;;JB196 05:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There, I edited out that section and your page is no longer in the listing for Pages for deletion. Felt bad, because I figure it was my fault (in trying to help you) that it was listed :) SirFozzie 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination for AFD

I am agnostic about the subject and its notability. I'd give at least a month between renominations.
My understanding is that the "lack of contributors" was regarding AFD discussion. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DVDVR

I don't know if it will have any effect, but I'm going to add to the chorus. JB, your crusade against Death Valley Driver Video Review needs to stop. Whether you realize it or not, we were all talking about notability in the second AfD, whether we talked about it in terms of the guideline WP:WEB or just generally. At this point, it barely matters whether you were right or not, because any future deletion nomination you make is likely to be looked on with severe skepticism and may be speedily kept. Please seriously consider the wisdom of how and even whether you continue to edit this article.--Kchase02 T 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm going to add to the chorus" - There is no chorus to add to in the first place.

You have the right to an opinion. It is unfortunate that you choose not to follow WP:AGF but that is your choice. SirFozzie and TruthCrusader - who are strong advocates of the article - both post on the DVDR message board. You ignore this fact and make it out as if it is somehow unique that somebody regulalry editing a particular article has a strong opinion about the subject. All of my edits have been more than fully accounted for. If you wish to disagree with them, that's your choice, but I have accounted fully for my opinion on the subject by referring to Wikipedia policies, while you have not.JB196 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that my comments appeared as though they were not in the spirit of good faith. I wasn't actually referring to your edits to DVDVR, but the recent nominations for deletion and the deletion review for SmartMarks.com. WP:WEB and others are merely guidelines, not policies (this coming from someone who often enforces them like policy). In fact, there is no official policy on notability. My hope in leaving this message was that you would heed advice from me about AfDs, if only because I showed you enough good faith in the last AfD to change my vote from keep to delete. The reason I suggested you proceed differently or even stop editing the article is b/c the principle products of this editing seem to be a lot of discord and two AfDs that led to more discord. I hope you'll consider the possibility that I started this conversation in good faith, even if I could have phrased the initial comment better.--Kchase02 T 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is fine, no hard feelings or anything. I forgot who you were, did not realize yuo were the person who had changed your vote until you reminded me just now. I am probably not going to afD the article again for quite a bit, if ever, although I do intend to edit it.JB196 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we're on better terms now. That seems like a good plan. Remember if the editing gets hot, you can always leave a message that you're walking away from the situation and coming back in a few days. Good luck and sorry that the other forum got deleted.--Kchase02 T 01:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds good.JB196 01:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Nomination Bleeding Was Only Half the Job

I've nominated the article Bleeding Was Only Half the Job for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Bleeding Was Only Half the Job satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleeding Was Only Half the Job. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Bleeding Was Only Half the Job during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. William Pietri 16:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something you might want to know

As you may already know, User:SirFozzie has filed a mediation request at the Mediation Cabal involving both he and yourself. We will be having a friendly discussion at my talk page to help settle the issue in a peaceful manner. Thank you and I hope this gets worked out. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 17:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RSPW

your last edit removing the nz reference and so forth i thought was pretty fair and unbiased. thanks! WillC 22:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"news and rumour sites"

In the ECW article, you replaced my link with the better on to the Sun's website, which I wasn't able to find. For the record though, pwinsider does report legitimate news regarding pro wrestling and the free site doesn't report things as fact that haven't been verified. Granted they don't always link to their sources, but they ARE a news site, and I think they can be validly cited in the absence of better evidence. --Davetron5000 12:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that pwinsider, wrestlingobserver and Pro-Wrestling Torch are all as close to legitimate news sources as possible for pro wrestling today. The writers and editors have relationships with people in WWE, wrestlers and staff, and use somewhat journalistic standards wrt to posting (getting multiple sources, getting permission from their sources, etc.), though they rarely name sources, so there is a level of trust there (thus the "somewhat"). I guess when they post about upcoming storylines/changes in the company, those things do come to pass, which lends to their credibility. So, while I wouldn't say those three sites are as rock-solid as say, NY Times, I think they are good enough to fill in a "citation needed" type thing barring a better reference. As for other wrestling sites, they either reprint stuff from those three or make things up, and have very little credibility.

Yeah, I guess you do have a point. PWInsider is run by Dave Scherer who used to run 1wrestling.com, which is owned by Joey Styles. I guess Dave was heavily involved with ECW and has personal relationships with many wrestlers and other people from then. He used to put out a weekly snail-mail newsletter I think, prior to the Internet, so he's been around a while.. He or his site *might* have been mentioned in the non-WWE ECW documentary but I can't be sure.

Cleanup templates

Hi, please don't overuse cleanup templates on articles. Just pasting a ton of them with no discussion isn't productive. Talking about specific concerns on the articles' talk pages is a much better way on accomplishing something. Thanks. - Bobet 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your reasons behind adding a multitude of tags to the Extreme Warfare article as explained on the talk page seem to rely solely on how you personally feel about the article. Opinions are great, but when the majority disagrees with you, just burying your head in the sand and ignoring them doesn't help. Please do not simply re-add the tags, everyone would be saved time if you just edited the article itself to address your concerns (eg. relevance). Since the notability issue is based solely on your feeling against those of at least 4 others, how about you just let go of that. It did go through a full-length afd, the fact that the nominator withdrew only shows that he eventually agreed that there's no guideline-based notability concern. - Bobet 19:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the article's talk page since your reply seemed specific to it. - Bobet 20:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WWE

Whether I have familiarised myself with the situation (which I have) is irrelevant; you reverted World Wrestling Entertainment six times in a twenty-four hour period. This is a violation of the three-revert rule, and the only reason I didn't temporarily block you is because you didn't seem to be aware of the rule.
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 01:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see your talk page for response.

Please see WP:AN/3RR#User:JB196_reported_by_User:--_User:3bulletproof16_.28Result:_No_block.29. The diff links there indicate that you reinserted the same "See also" links into the article more than three times in 24 hours. As for talk pages, you can remove most messages if you want, but it's generally frowned upon to remove warnings like the one I previously gave you and not put it into an archive (e.g. User talk:JB196/Archive01). Thanks. Extraordinary Machine 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Vic Grimes article

Hi. I noticed your fued with the Vic Grimmes article, and I wanted to let you know that you can't be credited for your work here. There are no "authors" or etc. because it is the Free Encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What you're doing is damaging the hard work of others. If you want to be credited for your work, you should create your own website. Thank you.--Koji Dude 03:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I srtongly suggest that you just forget about the whole thing, as it has already been listed at WP:ANI and this issue may escalate to the point where you (and possibly others) are blocked.--Koji Dude 03:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nonsense

I have no knowledge of the Vic Grimes dispute, but could you and 3bulletproof16 at least agree to stop with the constant reversions on 3bulletproof16's talk page? I have left my thoughts here - I'd appreciate it if you could take a look, and offer your thoughts. Feel free to use my talk page in the meantime if you'd like, to avoid them being reverted right away. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, please stop editing 3bulletproof16's talk page: period. It's not helping matters. Let's take it up here. I think 3BP16 is warranted in wanting to remove the large chunk of text from his talk page - there's no good reason to keep it as it's clearly just copied text from another talk page. So it should be no problem to remove it, as it's preserved elsewhere. The only comment that is unique to 3BP16's talk page will be preserved - all duplicate information will be removed. I'll perform the removal myself. Objections? --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your (JB196) comment on my talk page. The comment under Extraordinary Machine is no longer relevant if there isn't the issue of who should be revert who any more - once we resolve this, it will no longer be needed. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this comment: there was no tone in my edit summary, only typed words. Regardless of why, you were doing exactly what you objected to 3bulletproof16 doing on his talk page, which was only going to exacerbate the situation. I was asking you to stop so we could get on with resolving things. Which brings us to this: it is Wikipedia policy that users should not remove warnings from their talk pages regarding their disruptive behaviour or simple vandalism. 3bulletproof16's edits do not fall under either of these categories, and so while it may be frustrating, he is free to remove your comments from his talk page. Since the content dispute is regarding the Vic Grimes article anyway, the conversation can be continued on its related talk page. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3bulletproof16's Talk Page

Nothing was truly agreed upon by all parties in the end - have another look at 3BP16's talk page, and you'll see that he did not agree to the proposal, which is fair enough. The comments you left on his talk page were not vandalism warnings, and so while it might not have been the pinnacle of etiquette, I see nothing wrong with 3BP16 removing your comments from his talk page. It may be frustrating, but it's probably for the best since the real discussion probably belongs on the Vic Grimes talk page anyway. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 19:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't mean to say that your comments on his talk page weren't constructive, just that they weren't vandalism warnings - and really, those are the only kinds of comments that really must stay on a user talk page, to avoid confusion with other editors or administrators. Once a user has read the comments left on their talk page, they are "free" to delete them, in the sense that there isn't any Wikipedia policy which strictly forbids this. It might not be the best form of etiquette, like I said, but if 3bulletproof16 really doesn't want those comments lingering on the talk page for his account, then it's his prerogative. The same prerogative, incidentally, that you and I and all other Wikipedia users enjoy. I hope that clarifies what I meant to get across in my original response. Cheers. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JB196, it is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR appeal

In short, I see that you were quite correctly blocked, be it for 3RR or simple vandalism for blanking large sections of the article repeatedly. There is no excuse whatsoever to fundamentally revert an article six times in the span of an hour, and arguing that a comma might have been left alone (or some other insubstansive change such as you're using in discussing WP:REVERT) is wikilawyering -- that is, arguing that adhering to some minor tidbit of the letter of the law while shredding the spirit of it is permissible -- of the worst sort. — Lomn | Talk 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not wikilawyering because wikilawyering refers to one's interpretation of a policy. This isn't my interpretation of a rule. I clearly stated the definition for a "revert" and applied that to the definition for a 3RR violation, and the result doesn't describe what I did. Whether or not your other points are valid, your wikilawyering argument is nothing but nonsense. Of course you're going to come back and say I'm wikilawyering right now, but if that's the case then by your logic there's no way whatsoever that anybody can disagree with any ruling without it being wikilawyering, and that's frankly ridiculous.JB196 04:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that. Guy 20:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a fair warning, I don't think you will have much success getting bullet blocked because it says at the top of the 3RR page that it does not apply to reverting vandalism, which he was doing to revert your vandalism. TJ Spyke 22:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked at what happened to his user page(which I belelieve he is free to do what he wants with except removing warnings), I was talking about the Vic Grimes article. TJ Spyke 23:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests

Thank you very much for taking a different tack in your issues with the Vic Grimes page. Asking for citations on troublesome pieces of info is a much more productive way to deal with things. If no citation is provided within a reasonable amount of time (like a week), you will be on much firmer ground in removing those specific pieces of unsourced information. OTOH, if sources are provided that meet WP:RS, you will need to be prepared to leave these things in the article. - TexasAndroid 19:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please see my response to your note on my talk page here. Also, I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you followed your own advice and stopped whitewashing your talk page to remove comments you don't like. Go have a cup of tea, calm down and come back and edit with a clear head before someone is forced to block you over these disruptions. Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked by many people in many places to calm down and drop this attempt at retaliation. Since you chose not to do so and continued to remove and edit other peoples comments on various pages[1], I have blocked you for an hour for disruption. Please take this time to relax so you can return to editing. Shell ^babelfish 01:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe me or not, I assure you that the edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3APersonal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&diff=74248329&oldid=74246726 was entirely, 110% unintentional on my part. I would never nor have I ever intentionally removed anybody’s comments from any page with the exception of my user page. That being said, I understand you’re thinking that it was unintentional, although it was not. I was simply knee deep in all of that text and was trying to cut and paste that one sentence but instead seem to have cut out the entire paragraph in the process.

Is it OK if I read that reply of mine that has since been reverted due to my removing that entire paragraph? (of course I would not also remove that entire paragraph again…I know to be more careful this time!). I do not see any reason why that reply should not be allowed to be readded.

Also your use of the word “Continue” indicates that I have removed other users’ statements before and that is not true.

Thanks in advance. - JB186JB196 02:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citations

JB, citation templates are not the holy crusade you're making them out to be. The addition or removal thereof isn't vandalism provided it's done in good faith. What's troublesome is that, prevented from simply deleting your contributions, you're instead flagging all of your contributions (for which you presumably had sources originally) as questionable. Citing is good -- why not just list the references you originally used to compose the material? Alternately, there's a reasonable standard of good faith to authorship. For instance, on the TWA page, give-or-take two thirds of the names you listed were verified with a single source. Consequently, I'm inclined to accept that the other names are reliable. On the other hand, I really don't mind if they're removed, as they're secondary to the article text. However, in any event, edit warring over the inclusion/exclusion of {{cite}} isn't really any more acceptable than edit warring over content proper. Please exercise discretion. — Lomn | Talk 15:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Oh, I've consulted it, alright. Just because I haven't posted a message doesn't mean I haven't read it. And I have. And your talk page. And Bullet's talk page. And the various debates on the admin's notice boards. I removed your spamming of citation tags. You can go on believing that what you're doing is correct. I'm doing the same. Are you going to go around the many PW articles on Wikipedia and add citation tags to move names on those as well? -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
Follow up: You know what? Forget just move names, you've placed citation freakin' tags on simple moves! That makes absolutely no sense. Seriously. You really ARE seething that your name isn't written on those articles. If I wasn't sure of it before, I am now. -->So sayeth M e t h n o r^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

What evidence is there that Vic Grimes uses these moves? (name or no name)JB196 21:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, edit warring and trolling. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead. . This block is for 48 hours, by which time the other editors on the articles you are disrupting should have had time to finish cleaning up. Guy 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JZG-Your application of reasons for this block remind me of my multi-flavor ice cream sundae binge last evening; because the only ruling that has any validity is the WP:POINT one, you had to pick up random other policies, some of this, then add some of that, then add this one and that one, and list them as if I had violated all of them, whereas if you actually read the policies themself and look at my edits, I didn't. That is fine; you are allowed to do that as a moderator, just as I am allowed to laugh at you as an editor. So that being said - HAHAHA. If you really are that desperate to get me blocked, maybe then you should just ban me permanently. It obviously doesn't matter to you that I have always assumed good faith on Wikipedia and my contributions to many pages (wrestling and otherwise) have been vital to their development. If you really want to see me not edit so bad, then you have the power, do you not? Tsk tsk tsk.JB196 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. Indefblocked. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sherlock, I wasn't talking to you; I was talking to JzG. {{unblock| }}JB196 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of shooting yourself in the foot? -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. In fact it sounds like something I'd like to do to you.JB196 23:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of "insulting an administrator doesnt get you unblocked"? Unblock denied. --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider you an administrator; an administrator is somebody who follows the official WP:BAN policy and you don't fall under that categorization. If you're going to ignore policy then that doesn't befit an administrator.JB196 03:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]