User talk:Wrestlinglover420

Archives
Archive 1

My Bad

Yea, that was my bad, sorry. When archiving, it's helpful to say so in the edit summary, that way other editors like me won't get confused. Bmg916^Speak 18:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, thank you for making an effort at being civil as you did here. That is much appreciated! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, me too. :-). And thanks for being civil. See ya around. Bmg916^Speak 18:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

File:Resilient-silver.png		The Resilient Barnstar
		I, Chrislk02, award you this Resilient Barnstar for making the effort to icnrease your civility. You have a long road ahead however have taken a positive first step. For this I am appreciative. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Chance

I guess I was a bit uncivil in my comments to you, and I apologize for that. You were given another chance by the admins, so I will give it to you as well. You might find that constantly archiving any untoward comments directed at yourself is usually seen as evasive and dismissive - not a very civil thing to do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I do wish you luck and perseverence, WL420. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Countdown

Hey! I'll explain it :) Basically lead sections of articles are supposed to be little mini-articles that summarize all the article's content (although few actually are). A big part of Countdown is the side-stories to explain who characters are and what's going on with the continuity. Basically, the goal for the article when it's "complete" (an impossibility, but you understand what I mean by this) is that the lead section should indicate the plot and purpose of the story, basic technical details (writers, dates etc.), and some context (i.e. it's followed by 52, will lead to Finial Crisis which is a sequel to the other Crises etc.) which altogether contributes towards a better article.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Asking an admin to step in is a bit excessive and hostile, but ok. The only reason it's repetitive is because the subsection later on is poorly constructed and under-expanded. Also, "not a good reason" is a silly thing to stay, but then again style guidelines are not set in stone although ignoring them may harm the article's chances of getting GA or FA status.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

CC of exchange at User talk:Tenebrae

Thor edits

Read the book. First he bring back Asgard then the cops come and then the owner of the land comes. He tells Thor he must purchase the land which Thor does with the wealth of Asgard. Dont EVER remove factual information please.Wrestlinglover420 16:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

lol dude calm down.... he does have every right to remove it

1) there is no reference tag.

2) why didn't you put that other stuff with the cops in there, that way it would of made more sense.

Phoenix741 17:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to Wrestlinglover420: Be civil and observe Wiki etiquette, please. Your tone is uncalled for. --Tenebrae 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop carrying on, on my talk page. I can see from the subsequent posts and your blockage below that you might have an anger-management problem. I'll stay from your talk page if you'll please stay away from mine. Thanks. --Tenebrae 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What is your question? --Tenebrae 00:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This stuff. This carrying-on:

I didnt take a tone with anybody i gave him a proper warning just like i would give anyone who vandalised a page.Wrestlinglover420 06:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

but....it was not vandalism.Phoenix741 12:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was you removed factual information.Wrestlinglover420 14:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And how per say did he know it was factual? See you got to see it from his point of view, you added info, but you added it with out a reference, so he had no idea if that was what actually happened or not. So to him you were the vandal. Next time just add a reference, and you should be good.Phoenix741 14:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Its called Good Faith. He vandalised the page i properly warned him end of story its done and over with anyway.Wrestlinglover420 15:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As Phoenix741 noted, I did not vandalize your page. I have never vandalized a page. It's your responsibility to confirm and verify claims. As for the rest of my comment, see "Blocked" and "Last Chance" below, which indicates that admins and others find your behavior untenable.

Do we really need to go on? As I said, stay off my talk page and I'll stay off yours. --Tenebrae 03:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours. I will look through your recent edit wars and incivility and determine if you should be blocked for longer. Removing WP:3RR warnings from your page and calling it from a vandal is inappropriate as well as any form of edit warring. You are not entitled to 3 reversions, and due to your history of edit warring you will be best to keep it to 1 reversion tops or you may be blocked again. Please TALK and DO NOT EDIT WAR. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 12:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wrestlinglover420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well i dont really see how i was uncivil the other guy was. I wasnt trying to edit war and i tried my best to stay calm. The only reason why i removed the 3rr thing was because he did the same when i warned him. I dont expect to be unblocked but im asking for it not to be lenghtened.

Decline reason:

With your block log, I am highly surprised that you were not indef blocked. The 3RR block was valid. — Sandstein 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When this block expires, i expect you to be on 1RR. That means, i do not want to see you revert more than once on any given article. At the first hint of an edit war, you will be blocked again and for a longer period. I dont want to do this, but I try to make this project run smoothly. Edit warring is the exact opposite of that and is extremely detrimental to this project. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright.Wrestlinglover420 15:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Last Chance

I have pretty much warned you about undoing other editorts edits, especially with no edit summary. For example, here, why did you remove this reference? Provide an edit summary and explain what you are doing. Next time you will be blocked again, and for 48 hours. You are clearly not showing that you plan on changing to abide by our rules and policies. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be the case. And you have a certain amount of latitude to make that judgement per WP:BOLD. However, do not just blindly undo. Leave an edit summary explaining why you are doing what you are doing so others can undersatnd. That is a key concept here. I see you have made some great edits but reverions are dangerous things. IF in question, it is often best to leave it there or discuss it on the talk page before reverting. Hope this helps! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I don't claim ownership. Maybe you should assume good faith in future.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Your aggressive "mine all mine" attitude just suggests you don't care about what's better for the article, just that it's your way.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This stops now. I have been pulling for you to not backslide (even removed you off my watchlist), but you seem to be engagin in the same sorts of bad faith edits and revert-warring that nearly sent you packing before. You are on a 1RR probation, and yet you have reverted at least twice int he Countdown article. If you are trying to get banned, my friend, you are well on the road to that. I told you that you had a long road to haul, and you are sliding backwards. Cease the edit-warring immediately, WL. I will not make this good faith request again. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for 3 days for edit warring. Next time it will be two weeks, then I will propose an indef ban. My patience is wearing thin. I have gone out on a limb for you several times now. Please take this time to question your behavior hear and determine if you really do plan on changing. Thanks! Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1RR

You are limited to one revert per 24 hour period. That is one of the conditions of your probationary status. I am getting mighty tired of you and Zythe reverting the same material over and over again. Knock it off. If you write something and it is reverted, take it to the reverting editor or the Discussion page only. Do not revert anymore. Part of the reason people are on you for reverting is the insistence that your edit is absolute, and that anyone reverting you must be mistaken. Even if this weren't the most bass-ackwards way of looking at things, you are beholden to discuss those edits - not in the edit summary, but with that editor or on the discussion page. The very next time this comes up (on any page) in your edits, I will support the indef ban for your removal.
You work within a community. Either act in accordance with that, or the community will eject you. I don't see how I can make myself any clearer than that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that my comments were premature and not really AGF in this instance. I saw you reverting Zythe and undoing his edits, and it seemed like petty edit-warring to me. My apologies to you. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again

Because of edits like this, you have now been blocked for two weeks. You are skating dangerously close to an indefinite block. Consider this your last chance. The next block will probably escalate to a full-length block. Metros 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wrestlinglover420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

because i got mad and for that i apologize. Look do i really vandalise anything? If you can show me where ive actually vandalised a page ill eat a frisbee. This is kinda unjust. It should have just been a warning.

Decline reason:

You've been given numerous warnings before about this sort of behavior, and have been given a "second chance" coming off an indef block before. I'd suggest being very careful to stay within Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, since you've burned through a lot of good faith already. Behavior like this is not acceptable. —-Haemo 04:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wrestlinglover420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

yeah yeah yeah but 2 weeks? thats ridiculous! I dont vandalise.

Decline reason:

You're kidding me... how is that edit Haemo gave not vandalism? Plus, this isn't exactly your first block...or second...or third. — Jmlk17 07:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well lets see his mom thought that the 360 games worked on a regular xbox id say thats pretty damn stupid. Whatever ive got a life unlike most of you.Wrestlinglover420 13:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)