User talk:TrueCRaysball/Archive/3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 2 • Archive 3 • Archive 4 →

Jul. 2007 - Jul.2007

MPAA ratings

Ratings are only notable on Wikipedia when they are somehow controversial. In the case of the Manhunt 2 video game for instance, or the movie Live Free or Die Hard. Wikipedia is not a movie guide. It doesn't need to give advice to people whether a movie is suitable for their children. Also, English Wikipedia is not USA biased. The MPAA rating is of no significance to Canadians and Britons etc. I'm from the Netherlands for example. The Simpsons movie is rated All Ages here, but would that be of any use to you as an American if I added that to the article?--Atlan (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman, you're sinking back into the "my morals are right, protecting the children, etc." thing again. Please, like we've said, And you agreed to, when someone asks you to stop doing something, make sure you're in the right --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I can respect that, I was simply warning you to make sure you don't get in deeper. That said, it would take up far too much space to list all the possible ratings for a movie on the template without making it a huge PITA. When an article warrants it, we can make a section on the ratings, like Atlan said, when they are controversial. If people want to know if a movie is appropriate for their families, there are dozens of other sites that are better suited to being able to have the POV it takes to say something is immoral --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Terror level

Actually, I shouldn't have said that. However, it is already stated twice in the article that the current U.S. terror level is Elevated; there's no need to state that in the lede section. Also, when you're writing edit summaries, try not to use all caps and lots of exclamation points. --Core desat 01:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So u saying it should be apart of it or shouldn't?--Hornetman16 01:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)!

Current threat level should not be included, per WP:MoS. Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly and Wikipedia:Recentism should give you a feel for why this is. / edgarde 01:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay.--Hornetman16 01:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE's Crappy Version of ECW

C'mon.

This is obviously unencyclopedic, and besides no one will ever look the article up using that title. Can you request a speedy deletion for this? Adding {{db-redirmisnomer}}, {{db-attack}} or {{db-test}} to the article page will do the job.

Any pages linking to this title should be fixed as well. / edgarde 01:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

48 Hours

no. People could see that for themselves, the dab page is not a dictionary listing, it should lead to other articles with similar names --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 20:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for giving absolutely no value to my edits and explanations, Hornetman. I guess next time I won't even bother with an edit summary. It's also great to see you're going round my back to discuss this rather than with me. Keep it up.--Atlan (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going for a second opinion like my Final Coditions stated to do if I didn't agree with something.--Hornetman16 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. But it's rather uncouth to completely skip discussing with the person you have a difference of opinion with. This is more like shopping for someone that agrees with you. Also, you could've just read WP:DAB and all would have been clear. Anyway, I'll take back my overly sarcastic remarks. I know you meant no harm. Next time, don't be afraid to ask me for an explanation on my talk page though (or address the matter in the article's talk page).--Atlan (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you should talk to people about things, not just go running off to someone, that's more if you're dealing with something you think is vandalism. Do take other people's advice --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 22:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Offering to help

Hey Hornetman ... I thought long and hard about it after looking through the events on your talk page earlier this week, and figured that since I speak your language (in more ways than one), I'd be willing to informally adopt you. Seems that there's a lot of people willing to help out ... but please, let them help you. Blueboy 96 00:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I will think about it over the course of the next week.--Hornetman16 07:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the youtube link you posted on The Rock (entertainer)

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to The Rock (entertainer). For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bmg916^Speak 15:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so we are clear... I think this is what he was talking about. You added it again. I took it out. -- Ben 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He said don't use it as a sentence which I changed it out of.--Hornetman16 02:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Dang. I think you might be right. I thought the point was that you were linking to copyrighted material. Sorry about that. -- Ben 02:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's okay.--Hornetman16 02:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the template is worded a little weird, to clarify, please don't link at all to the video as it is used on youtube without the copyright holders permission, and therefore a copyright violation. Bmg916^Speak 11:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That template says yu can use it as a refrence but okay.--Hornetman16 23:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Edge's Belt small.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Edge's Belt small.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:WrestleMania24logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:WrestleMania24logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

because

things like the length of non title runs arent notable by the guidelines in the Wrestling Project. If you think they should be go and plead your case.BlueShrek 21:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If it the scoop slam by Kane on The Great Khali is not notible as the simular to the scoop slam delivered by Hulk Hogan to Andre The Giant then why the heck did WWE make it notible?--Hornetman16 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble/SummerSlam/Survivor Series infobox images

I think it is a good idea to remove the logos from those pages and replace them with the posters. The logos for those three events are very repetitive and consistent year by year which is why they are used on multiple pages. However that is an unnecessary WP:FU violation. Replacing the repetitive logos with the posters for these three events is a good idea because it fixes this violation problem. Nice work. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Why did it get reversed the last time I did it then?--Hornetman16 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Just make the FU violation your argument if it happens again. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania Logos are unique and never repetitive which don't actually violate any FU policies. The reason the logos are used there instead is because the images of the event already in the article get smooshed together in the article and create huge white spaces when there is a long image like a poster in the infobox. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, If you are adding an image you uploaded for the hell of adding it to the article even though it really serves no purpose, you shouldn't, especially when... again... it creates a huge white space within the article. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:FBI Wanted

Just wanted to tell you that the template you've created is up for deletion. Please do not post nonsense on Wikipedia. — Ian Lee (Talk) 21:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I already knew it.--Hornetman16 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman, please do not make things like this. It's a giant violation of WP:NDT. If you know something will be regarded as nonsense and you put it on wikipedia anyway, that is WP:VANDALISM, and you can and will be blocked for it --L^augh! 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a speedy delete on my talk page?--Hornetman16 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone had added a speedy delete template to User:Hornetman16/9-11. I reverted it. --B 23:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE PPV

When was it decided that SummerSlam, Royal Rumble and Survivor Series posters where to be moved to the infobox. Bencey 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't decided as a group it was decided by me and 3bulletproof16 that the logos indeed violated WP:FU and the posters should be there instead to correct this problem.--Hornetman16

Given that minimising the amount of fair use images we use is a good thing, and given that having both logos and posters didn't add more to the article than having just posters, I think this change is probably a good idea. Hornetman, you might consider using edit summaries to describe your edits when you're editing articles? See WP:ES for more information. --Deskana (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

But the logos for there PPV's change, perhaps not every year but they do change. I noticed that the WrestleMania posters remain untouched why should they remain exempt from the rule. Who are you and Bulletproof to decide this radical change. This should be a matter for all involved in the project to decide. Bencey 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

They've not decided anything. They are implementing Wikipedia's policy on fair use. Our policy dictates that fair use images can only be used in articles if they substantially add to the article. Showing the changes between the logos does not substantially add anything to the article. I endorse this action on their part. --Deskana (talk) 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.--Hornetman16 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your userpage

Your userpage doesn't conform to WP:USER. Firstly, you've got a totally unsubstantiated paragraph about Chris Benoit. You've also got endless statistics about wrestling. Your userpage isn't the place for you to state your beliefs like that. Look at my userpage, or Riana's, or Daniel's. We describe a (tiny) bit about ourselves, and then mostly elabourate about who we are on Wikipedia. Yours isn't even remotely like that. You need to tone it down a lot before it's an acceptable userpage. And please, do not misrepresent what people have said. Daniel never threatened to block you if you asked him again. And yes, I have read his talkpage. That wasn't what he was saying. --Deskana (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what is sounded like. Anyway, the purpose of me putting my proposed User page there is to let Admins. look at it and make the edits to make it conform to WP:USER which only Riana is the only one to even try with only one edit. I'm waiting on everyone else to edit it.--Hornetman16 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. --Deskana (talk) 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you get the word out especially to Daniel?--Hornetman16 01:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Look at it now then. It's still a bit OTT, but I'd say it conforms to WP:USER. --Deskana (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove 3/4 of the userboxes from User:Hornetman16/Userboxes, or link to that page from your userpage rather than transcluding it on there. That is a ridiculous number of userboxes. Daniel 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll do it but it was Alison that did it that way.--Hornetman16 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel's doing it this way. I'd suggest merely linking to the userbox page, so you can save your userboxes. Daniel 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I did.--Hornetman16 02:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. As I said in the move summary, if you push the line again or reinsert material that someone else removes from your page, I'll just delete the page again. Daniel 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Sir!--Hornetman16 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Let Daniel know since he's the only one that can okay it and undo the protect from edit thing.--Hornetman16 01:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:WM23 Poster.jpg

You need a fair use rationale for every use, along with the copyright tag, otherwise it'll be deleted. "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." --Dark Falls ^talk 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Hadley

People have been known to survive days, even weeks, even longer after being "taken off life support", which usually means being taken off a ventilator. I agree that he's dying and may already be dead but without an official announcement, adding in a date of death goes against WP:ATT - without attribution it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia, and has the potential of making Wikipedia look bad. --Charlene 15:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that I thought he was dead!--Hornetman16 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Heaven Bound

I can't believe I am going through this again. Yes, people who are not signed in can prod articles. First of all, quote me chapter and verse of where they can't according to wiki rules. Second, even if you can, the fact that the prod went through and was listed shows that people who are not signed in can prod. Deal with the issues brought up in the prod and whether or not they are valid and not who initiated it. 172.150.83.110 11:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of this picture

As you have already nominated the picture [1], and brought the issue up at WP:PW [2], how about you leave the picture on the article until a consensus has been reached, and if the consensus is to delete it then feel free to do so. But until there is consensus it should stay in the articles it is being used in so those voting on it can see it in context, as your deletion claim does state "No longer relevant to anything.", and keep the picture in place will allow those voting to view its relevance. Darrenhusted 12:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ok--Hornetman16 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Superstars to Hold the WWE & World Heavyweight Championships

The fact of the matter is that these lists of reigns by combined lengths are completely unnecessary. The reason for that is that these lists have already been integrated within the articles of lists of reigns by length. For example, the same list found at List of top ECW World Champions by combined length is already found at the bottom of List of ECW World Championship reigns by length. It just seems redundant to have two articles of lists when you can have both lists in one article. It is also obvious trivia. -- bulletproof ^3:16 16:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha--Hornetman16 16:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Free/Fair

Free use is free of all copyright, fair use still has copyright. Free is preferred. If you have a problem take it to a talk page, don't keep reverting endlessly, you are past 3RR with regards to that page, you revert one more time and I'll report you. As it stand if you are willing to listen then I won't file a report, however other could. Darrenhusted 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Woh, take it easy Darrenhusted. Aaron. Unfortunately free images (regardless of quality) are preferred over fair use images. Buy a replica and take a picture yourself for a better quality free image.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I don;t think it's possible for any free use to exsist since it's a copyrighted look--Hornetman16 17:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True, the look is copyrighted but that’s only if, for instance, another company made a belt of their own and it looked exactly the same as the WWE Championship. In this case it would be the same as taking a photograph of a building such as Ford Field. Sure the architectural look is copyrighted, but that does not mean it is restricted for a person to take a photograph of it and replicate the image on paper. If the photographer chooses to release their image into the public domain then it becomes a free image. So if you take a picture of the WWE Championship and release the image into the public domain then it becomes a free image as well. The rule about photographs of copyrighted things still being copyrighted regardless of who took the photo would only apply to logos. Hope that cleared up a few things.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which the belt contains the WWE logo.--Hornetman16 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because the belt itself is copyrighted doesn't mean a photo of it is. A good image on Wikipedia would explain this. --Deskana (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

What's you opinion on what I just said, 3bulletproof16?--Hornetman16 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no "opinion". Copyright law doesn't vary based on who you ask. --Deskana (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote:The rule about photographs of copyrighted things still being copyrighted regardless of who took the photo would only apply to logos. Hope that cleared up a few things.-- bulletproof 3:16 17:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which the belt contains the WWE logo.--Hornetman16 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)</END QUOTE>

That's what I'm asking about.--17:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The WWE Logo on the belts: Again. What are you trying to illustrate with the image? The belt or the WWE logo on the belt? Since it is the belt that is being depicted then the image can be replaced with a free image of the belt regardless of whether a copyrighted logo is on it. -- bulletproof ^3:16 17:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're twisting it, Hornetman. If you went to the nearest supermarket and took a photo of the front of the store, *with* the logo of the supermarket it, you're saying the photo would be copyrighted to the owner of the supermarket, since it contains their logo? That's just wrong. Provided you make it absolutely clear that the logo of that supermarket is owned by the supermarket and you're not claiming ownership, that photo is free. If I take a photo of my laptop with the Acer logo on it, is the photo owned by Acer? No. --Deskana (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This matter was already discussed on the talk page six weeks ago, read it here. If you have a problem with the fair use /free use rationale then go to the projetc page and try to get the policy changed, don't keep disrupting WP:PW page to make a point. Darrenhusted 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning

Cease reverting at WWE Championship. You are in violation of the three revert rule. Further reverts will result in a block for edit warring and disruption. --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the 5th time you've said this.--Hornetman16 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I've not said anything five times. --Deskana (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you have.--Hornetman16 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Explain what I've said five times, for me then. My patience with you is starting to wear thin, so please don't waste my time. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No that was Darrenhusted that warned you 5 times. He can't block you on the spot because he isn't an admin. However, Deskana is and he can.-- bulletproof ^3:16 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. SORRY!!--Hornetman16 17:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop, please. Edit warring is bad enough. Edit warring in violation of Resolution:Licensing policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content, and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a completely unacceptable. ElinorD (talk) 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on WWE Championship. Your block will expire in 48 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Deskana (talk) 17:59, 20 July 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).

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

Request reason:

I doing what I thought was right for Wikipedia I guess I was proven wrong (if you'll read below), so requesting you assume good faith one last time.

Decline reason:

You were validly blocked for violating the three revert rule and you're lucky your block was not extended given your original response. I think you need to sit this one out. WjBscribe 20:03, 20 July 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.

I've tried explaining but you won't let me!--Hornetman16 18:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This block is BS.--Hornetman16 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You reverted, by reinserting the image into the page. Just because you're not reverting to the exact version doesn't mean it's not at least a partial revert. You were warned to not revert, and you did. You were edit warring. This block is valid. --Deskana (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying an Idea. I wasn't try to edit war.--Hornetman16 18:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I warned you to stop reverting. You reverted. It's that simple. --Deskana (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read Wikipedia:Three-revert rule as well, Hornetman. ElinorD (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

He violated the WP:3RR blocking policy by blocking me for more that 24 hours.--Hornetman16 18:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering over it isn't likely to be helpful to you. If you don't want to be blocked for edit warring, don't edit war. Friday (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So he get away with it?! That's BS right there.--Hornetman16 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikilawyering with people that know the ins and outs of the rules isn't a good idea. Accept the block, Hornetman, and reflect on exactly why you were blocked. --Deskana (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I accept it but, you violated the blocking policy on time limit and you know it!--Hornetman16 18:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? You were warned to drop it, but since you won't, I guess I'll just have to prove you wrong.

According to the blocking policy, edit warring or revert warring is blockable, as disruption to the encyclopedia.
According to the blocking policy, blocks for disruption are typically 24 hours, with longer blocks for successive violation.

You edit warred and revert warred, and as you have been blocked twice before, this is a longer block for successive violations. I warned you not to wikilawyer. So please, don't do it in future. --Deskana (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this block. Within the last day, you've re-inserted Image:WWE JohnCena.jpg six times [3][4][5][6][7][8]. You were informed of the consequences of reverting by two people, and were pointed to WP:3RR [9] 10 minutes prior to the last revert you made [10], which resulted in the block action occurring two minutes later [11]. You've previously been blocked for disruptive actions. If you had a clean block record before this, a shorter block might be in order. But, you were aware of the policy. You'd been blocked in the past for repeated problems. Yet, you chose to charge on and conduct another revert, claiming in the edit summary that it's not really a revert, it's a suggestion. Sorry, but no suggestion can reasonably be made on the 6th time that hasn't been made in the last five times. This was disruptive editing, and the block was entirely appropriate.
I would also like to point out that your edit summaries and other comments paint a clear misunderstanding of our policies with regard to fair use content on Wikipedia. Free use content is always preferred, even if that free use content is lesser quality than fair use. Period. End of discussion. This has been debated before, and the Foundation has spoken on the issue in favor of free content over higher quality copyrighted content. You're on the wrong side of this policy.
Further, in this edit summary you attempt to draw a distinction between types of users. Whether a person is a first time editing IP or Jimbo, they need to be respected the same. An admin is not a special class of user that makes them superior to others, nor is a logged in user superior to anon IPs. There is no stratification of users on Wikipedia, only users who have extra buttons to conduct the work of Wikipedia. Any interpretation of that by you to conclude that users are higher ranked than others is flatly false and you would be well advised to remember that. --Durin 19:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, this diff does absolutely nothing to strengthen your case that your block should be shortened or removed. Please be aware of WP:CIVIL. If you're too angry to type, just walk away. I appreciate you removing it as you did, but try not to make such edits period. --Durin 19:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman - chill out, please. Deskana didn't violate any policy on block times. Frankly, you're lucky that's all you got, given that 1) you were given a lot of warnings yet continued and 2) you still cannot see what's wrong with what you've done. Blocks are meant to stop disruption and not to be punitive. As I see it, a 48-hour block is appropriate in this case. However, you do have the right to review so paste the {{unblock}} template if you like and let another admin review it. I'll keep out of the way - Alison ☺ 19:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman, do you really think arguing with someone who the community trusts enough to not only give them the mop, but the keys to the supply closet is going to help you? You broke 3RR, you were warned, and you've been blocked in the past for actions extremely similar to this- no reasonable person would disagree with Deskana here. Own up to what you did, admit that you deserve what you got, and move on. It happens to us all. I recommend you do what I'm going to do this weekend - get away from the computer, grab a good book, and read it. There's a Good Book that you've probably been meaning to read more of anyway :) --L^augh! 19:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I do need to catch up on my Bible reading.--Hornetman16 19:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Deskana, I would like to request from you an unblock with the compromise that the 3RR will never become a problem.--Hornetman16 03:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to save Deskana the trouble and decline your unblock right here and now. Had I seen this little "Fuck You" message before now, I'd have extended your block for a week for disruption and incivility. Consider yourself lucky and sit out your 48-hour block. Nothing you have done to-date indicates that you will not continue your behaviour. Furthermore, you have repeatedly violated rules and shown contempt for copyright law and the 3RR rule. Frankly, you are exhausting the patience of the community at large by your behaviour and are fast heading for a community ban. Seriously. Please don't read this as a threat, either. It's not - Alison ☺ 03:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to inform you: I emailed Deskana and s/he said to ask on here for unblock from him/her and that's what I did.--Hornetman16 06:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

... and I declined, as did User:WJBscribe before me. If you emailed Deskana, then why did you request Deskana directly here? That makes little sense. I'm finding it very hard to reconcile your recent behaviour with your stated intent. Flipping someone off like that ... just what were you thinking??? - Alison ☺ 06:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All I was thinking was to get some steam blown off, not the best way, bet that's how I did it, I removed right after I did it. And I mistyped up there, I've corrected it now.--Hornetman16 07:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It was highly inappropriate. If you wish to 'let off steam' like that in future, please step back from the keyboard. Nobody deserves to be the target of abuse like that. You have apologised .... right? - Alison ☺ 07:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC) (Deskana is male, BTW)

Yes, Ma'am.--Hornetman16 08:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe you won't cause more problems. You've been unblocked twice before on the ground of us assuming good faith, and I warned you people can only assume good faith so many times before it becomes unreasonable to do so. Now it is unreasonable to do so. --Deskana (talk) 11:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just take a few days break from Wikipedia and learn the lessons set by this block. Two days isn't that long... If you ever feel the need, as Ali said, to "let off steam" keep in mind that you're talking to real people, not robots, who might take offense. Would you talk to people like that in real life, and would it be right to do so? Furthermore, I advise that you read the main policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, especially the "safe behaviors" part, as they are extremely important on Wikipedia. If you follow the rules set by it, you should have no problems with blocks. --Dark Falls ^talk 12:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornetman, I agree with what's being said above. Assuming good faith only goes so far. You were, as Deskana noted, granted a reduction of blocks before. This time, it should stick. I don't know what's happened of late that you should suddenly find yourself the subject of three blocks within the last 30 days, but I do hope the situation improves. If it doesn't, I wouldn't be surprised if the next block is a week, maybe even two. We all want you to be here, but you have to work with people, not against them. --Durin 13:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was helping Wikipedia but I was wrong. BTW, two days seems like forever when you're 16 and and this is all you do on the internet.--Hornetman16 19:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK!!!!

Just to let you know

This may be a minor thing at the moment, but I fixed a typo at User:Hornetman16/9-11 that I notice when I moused the ribbon on your page. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, man!--Hornetman16 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for identity check

An editor who recently registered "Hornetman16" on English Wikiquote is claiming to be you. A rather odd question about being blocked makes me a little suspicious that this may be an impersonator. Could you confirm or deny here, on your WP talk page, that you are the same person as q:User:Hornetman16? Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the same name I use on all the Wiki's.--Hornetman16 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but did you register this specific one on en:WQ 3 days ago? I ask for explicit confirmation because we have some vandals who deliberately look for usernames registered on many projects, pick a project the user missed, register the name, and then impersonate them. Sorry to be pedantic, but I often need to sort out these impersonations and wish to be careful but sure. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I just registered.--Hornetman16 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Philippians 4:13

Philippians 4:13, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Philippians 4:13 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippians 4:13 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Philippians 4:13 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Navou 06:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't close it until after Tuesday so I can comment on it, I'd do it now but I'm blocked from editing.--Hornetman16 06:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Its fine... it is a five day debate period so you should be able to come in after the block. Cheers, Navou 06:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

re C. S. Lewis

Three reasons: (1) Your edit added superfluous material to the lead, since L.'s conversion is already mentioned in the second paragraph; (2) "born-again Christian" is a problematic designation when applied to L.—it has already been discussed and rejected on the article's Talk page; see Archive 1 under "C.S. Lewis, religiously?"—and the detailed explanation of his conversion in the body of the article is in any event more informative than your boilerplate phrase; (3) you didn't bother to spell "again" correctly. Deor 20:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He is a born-again Christian[12]--Hornetman16 20:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "born-again" appears nowhere on the page you (incorrectly) linked to. Deor 21:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Born-again" does not appear on the second page you linked to, either. Nevertheless, you're missing the point. The term has been rejected by those involved in editing the article, and if you want to add it, you'll need to develop a consensus on the article's Talk page before doing so. Please don't post any more irrelevant external links on my Talk page. Deor 21:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: I Understand, BUT...

...Never said they weren't. Just saying that by adding "Check Back as Matches are Announced" makes Wikipedia sound like a news site, something that Wikipedia is not. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No hurry for that. WWE should start building towards the event this week. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Future: The Ride

Brilliant place to put the image. Thank you! I wish I'd thought of it... =David^(talk)_(contribs) 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Tough one. I think you should ask Deskana. My head's tired. I need to sleep. Night.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Hey

Actually, I didn't make it. You can request one here, though. Cheers, JetLover ^(talk) 22:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WWE SUMMERSLAM ISSUE

Well you want proof go to the WWE summerslam website, do you see a promo poster? Also in Wikipedia, search for jackass (series), someone also wrote that they cancelled their appearance at Summerslam. And in most Wrestling Rumor,spoiler sites, it is included.Nosaints4life 23:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the Jackass link in wikipedia, Jackass (TV Series). Then click possible return.

If it ends up being true will u delete your warning, or if I can find a source before the PPV airs?

Ok so originally, Jackass is scheduled to appear which was confirmed by WWE during an episode of RAW which aired a promo for Summerslam which said something like, the biggest party of the summer is being crashed, and then the jackass logo showed up right?

So WWE confirmed that they were gonna be there, so if they dont appear wouldnt that mean that WWE itself would be a reliable source beacause they confirmed jackass for SS '07 and it was cancelled by both parties like i posted earlier, so my source would be WWE, is that reliable?

Ok so if you give it time, will you remove the warning if WWE posts anything about Jackass not appearing, and if they dont post anything, can you wait until after summerslamto see if they appear and if they dont WWE would be the source like i said earlier, so can you give me time?

I will never vandalize again unless i have a reliable source, THANk YOU!Nosaints4life 00:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea i kno, thank you for giving me a chance

Ok I have one more question, if WWE doesnt put up the same promo poster for summerslam, will that be a godd source to prove my point?

re:You have a message!

Ok. I'll start replying there instead of here. — Moe ε 02:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Replaceable means replaceable.-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Because up until now we had no other way to replace them. Now we have users buying the replicas and taking pictures of them. Works just as well.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess policy is BS.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Aaron but policy is policy. -- bulletproof ^3:16 16:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks....

...for this. I'm bad at English :-) God bless you! --Boricuaeddie 02:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

for your help with the summerslam issues --Jwein 03:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

SUMMERSLAM ISSUE

Is TMZ.com a reliable source?Nosaints4life 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

heres the link [13]

Oh, well lets just wait until WWE puts up a new promo poster. Then will you believe me

BTW WWE's affiliates page just released a new poster. Its up now. See the talk page first. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Told you, there is a new poster from WWE affiliate (from WWE), a reliable source, well??Nosaints4life 22:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So you going to delete the warning?Nosaints4life 22:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you said you were going to delete the warning if WWE proved that I was right, what happened?Nosaints4life 23:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Why? Just like with the other big four event, SummerSlam, Survivor Series, and Royal Rumble are the article about the PPV series. Since the first WrestleMania didn't have a number, it is referred to by year just like SummerSlam (1988), Survivor Series (1987), or Royal Rumble (1988). -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Where in history do you remember hearing last year's SummerSlam referred to with year? That’s right, never. They always refer to the other events by name without year. That’s why the years are in parenthesis, to disambiguate. The same thing goes for the WrestleMania (1985) page. The event was referred to as WrestleMania without a number like "1", however for disambiguation we use the year of the event in parenthesis.-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We are talking about when the event was held. When the opening graphics for an event come up they never refer to it by year. Just like when the announcers promote the event.-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again thats also used by them to disambiguate, however they have never actually referred to those events by year. Take this years The Great American Bash intro. [14]. Not once referred to by year.-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Or last year's Unforgiven. [15] I didn't hear "And now, RAW presents... WWE Unforgiven 2006"-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Or hell, take this year's Royal Rumble. [16] The intro says Royal Rumble, never Royal Rumble 2007. Like I said, years are used in articles to disambiguate even though WWE doesn't refer to their events by year.-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania is different though because after the first one the rest have been referred to by number (with the exception of WrestleMania 2000 which is the only one that was actually referred to by year, which is why the year 2000 isn't in parenthesis). -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Somewhere on the set doesn't make it the official name of the event though. All promotional posters, logos, commercials, etc. for those events have never made use of the year. Do you see SummerSlam '06 here? Exactly.-- bulletproof ^3:16 20:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly but even on your brother's DVD the official name of the event is not referred to with a year in the title. Just a date and location below the event's name, meaning that the year is not part of the name. Its never part of the name. That’s why we use parenthesis to disambiguate. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again take a look at the official vhs [17] -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Aaron drop the argument. It just doesn't make sense and every time someone brings a stronger argument to the table you just antagonize them for their decision to oppose the move. I know you are only doing what you think is best for the project but please don't bring WP:PW down like that [18]. Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy.-- bulletproof ^3:16 05:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cruiserweight title

I would also stop reverting if I were you. You don't want to end up getting blocked again for reverting against policy. Per Wikipedia:Original Research, If you don't have a source, Don't add it. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WrestleMania III

Its that time of the year again. More IPs adding Meltzer's number on the page. Could you help me watch it?-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply

See Talk:WrestleMania 23. New entry.-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Careful

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WrestleMania 23. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- bulletproof ^3:16 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't plan on an edit war and I didn't think it was one. I'm just trying find a place for it since I think it relevant.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that other users don't think so. So instead of reverting again, why don't you just keep discussing this in the article's talk page. Although the consensus pretty much shows the poster is not needed.-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cause people think I creating unnessicary stress for myself.--Hornetman16 ^(talk)

What do you mean? If you feel stressed out, do what we do. Take a Wikibreak.-- bulletproof ^3:16

21:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

summerslam poster

um the poster thats on the page is in spanish. you dont see that as i problem . cause i see that as a fake.--Jwein 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: I HATE IT

Are you talking the Rick Achberger article? Stormin' Foreman 02:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I tried everything I could to save it, but oh well... Stormin' Foreman 04:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, They must have a grudge against you or something! Stormin' Foreman 04:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised they havent deleted my Human Weapon article yet. Stormin' Foreman 04:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

LOL, yea Stormin' Foreman 05:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why did you do that?

Unless you can show me how it meets one of the criteria for speedy deletion categories, I can't speedy delete it. But you are free to nominate it for deletion at WP:IFD. Thanks. -- But|seriously|folks 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)