User talk:LM2000/Archive 3

Roman Reigns#Singles competition (2014–present)

Hi LM2000. Want to check with you, what do you think of the [A] [B] [C] [D] notes in Reigns's article? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 06:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply @Starship.paint:. There can be benefits to having a notes section but I don't really see the use of it in this case. All of that stuff should be mentioned in the body of the section, especially D.LM2000 (talk) 07:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries... hopefully you can keep a lookout for any changes since my edit. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have that article in my watchlist but I didn't notice the changes because they were made in a series of edits which appeared to be innocuous after just a quick glance. Thanks for tipping me off.LM2000 (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I don't have Reigns in my watchlist. Believe that. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

For the note about 3MB (wrestling) on its talk page. --Shirt58 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for being able to delete something that I tagged!LM2000 (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WWE Hall of Fame, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages NWA and AWA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very long

Hey LM2000, here's an insightful article about Reigns and Bryan by Observer's Meltzer (who else could write so, so long?) Thought you might be interested. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing @Starship.paint:. Very long but pretty insightful. Those last two sentences were particularly heartbreaking.LM2000 (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The good (or bad, it's how you view it) thing is - I don't think Bryan minds putting Reigns over. There was a leaked video of Bryan rehearsing a promo earlier this month and he was asking the writer if he was describing Reigns properly for the promo. Plus, Bryan is the least ambitious person in the world - WWE gave him a personality test. (I should add this to his article) All he wants to do is wrestle on SmackDown and make SmackDown relevant again. (I already added this to his article) starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the corporate bureaucracy is failing to deliver the goods that the fans want but the man himself being happy regardless is a plus. I can't remember the last time I watched SmackDown to be honest so hopefully he can set that sail in a better direction. Nevertheless, great work on the articles as always Starship.LM2000 (talk) 04:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PW Discussion

You're invited to participate in the discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Signature move sourcing. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

Are you a bot? It's just that you undid both my Jake the Peg edits immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.215.241 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar

LM2000 and @Prefall: - A few down, at least 298 to go. Could you help a little? Edit summary could be per [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 85#Marketing terminology/Peacock terms]], avoid using "Superstars" / "Divas" as much as possible starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 10:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I knocked out quite a few but I'm headed to bed now. I may resume later.LM2000 (talk) 11:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No pressure. Slowly but steadily. Goodnight! (P.S. oh no!)starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On another note... starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I misread that as "Heel Trainer" at first and thought they hired Demott back.LM2000 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LM2000. I was just wondering, at the Pac requested move, have you seen those editors who voted support before) I don't recognize their names and it's all a bit iffy to me. Reverse Wrestling is ClassicOnAStick which I do recognize. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 00:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone directed me to this. Seems to be a false alarm though because the editors have never interacted before. Sorry! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 02:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: I sensed what you did at first, but they all do seem to be established editors in their own right.LM2000 (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Just our luck that PAC managed to attract both British and American editors to his page. I used that tool on my and your account. Surprise, we overlap a lot! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A belated thanks for your congratulations, LM2000, since I was away on holiday. You should try getting a GA/FA yourself. Just try following the current FA articles. I'd be willing to advise more. Actually, I've lost a lot of interest in editing, because I need to focus on my personal goals more. My time is up, your time is now? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 04:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Stop undoing my edits please. If they were vandalism, ClueBot would've acted, but since he didn't my edits aren't vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.217.254 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help for Joey Styles

Hi,

I need some help because i want to restore Joey Styles article on wp:fr. The Afd (wp:pàs in french) is launch but some contributors wants some sources notable (big newspapers or PWI or WON articles). Can you help me ? The discussion page is fr:Discussion:Joey Styles/Suppression.--Sismarinho (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Anonymous Raw General Manager

The article Anonymous Raw General Manager has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. All sources are WP:ROUTINE match results or a blog entry. Possibly redirect to Professional wrestling authority figures.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nikki♥311 19:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Your warning

LM2000, with all due respect I was totally provoked there. It was baiting of the highest order, winding me up on their perception of consistency when in fact it's anything but. There's no point arguing with them because they are set in their ways, but there's equally no call for them to bait me the way that they have - especially OldSkool who has a rather large chip on his shoulder. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the post is irrelevant. You removed someone else post on a Wikipedia space talk page. Highly frowned upon. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 20:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking to LM. Kindly butt out, thank you. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand tensions have been running high lately, which is why I posted that response in that thread. There are exceptions where you can remove comments from a talk page when the comments are purely disruptive but I don't think the comments in question were at that level. If you feel that others are uncivil around you then there are other venues that can deal with that but given responses like the one you just gave TrueCRaysball I'm doubtful any administrator would take them very seriously; see WP:BOOMERANG.LM2000 (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I won't be taking any action other than what I have already done or tried to do. I simply felt defending myself to you and getting the response I got from you was the correct way to go about it. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a bit ironic that you're complaining about other's incivility, and yet you just told me to butt out. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 02:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So "kindly" and "thank you" are uncivil? Now I know where I stand with you if I didn't already. Bye bye. Curse of Fenric (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Thank you" and "Kindly" were overshadowed by the incivility of "butt out". And for the record, I could see the type of editor you were the first time I encountered you. And that's all I'm gonna say about it, because I don't want to violate WP:CIVIL. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 18:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rollins

Too bad there's not an admin around to block this person. You must be getting tired of this. gobonobo ^c 01:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported the IP here: [1] GAB (talk) 01:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for him/her there is no Barnstar for blanking the same page 50 times. At least it has given my rollback button a workout.LM2000 (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it's possible that the IP views this as a game and you are giving them exactly the attention they were seeking? Possibly better to wait until they are blocked, or at least to slow down the reversion. All you are doing is incrementing the edit counter and feeding the troll. General Ization ^Talk 01:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. We need admins who are on the ball with reports so we don't have reversion wars that extend for this long. No one should get a blank page when they look up that article. gobonobo ^c 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If one of us doesn't get it another recent patroller will. We shouldn't have to worry about it much longer, one would hope/think this will be resolved soon enough.LM2000 (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two or three blankings every minute makes for a long hour. It took 48 minutes from the time the IP was reported to the time they were blocked. Keep up the good work, gobonobo ^c 02:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated work on their part. Must not have a lot going on.LM2000 (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

A discussion you may be interested is now happening on ANI. True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 00:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Stuart Hall.

I too had the first impression that Stuart Hall was irrelevant to Operation Yewtree-- he certainly wasn't arrested through it. However, the wikipedia page for it does list him as being investigated for sexual abuses as part of the operation, so I'm not sure his inclusion in the category is unwarranted. I looked at the category for Operation Yewtree, and it doesn't appear to strictly contain the arrested individuals, but rather any page which relates to it-- if the only criterion is pertinence, then Stuart Hall should definitely be within that category. Zortwort (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zortwort:, I was under the impression that his investigation was one conducted concurrently with the Yewtree investigation, as it states on the main Operation Yewtree article. If we included him in that then the likes of Cliff Richard, William Roache, etc. would also be eligible for inclusion in the category. The scope of the category seems to keep changing; at first it was everyone arrested as part of the investigation, this was later changed to those only convicted of the related charges... I'm not entirely sure what the scope is at this point. Needless to say I will not revert you again if you chose to place Hall in the category again.LM2000 (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000:, I'm mostly impartial to his categorization, or lack thereof, as such. I suppose it's up to the other editor who initially put him there. To that end, I don't intend to make any more changes--just wanted to confirm the status of that matter. Thanks for the reply, Zortwort (talk) 06:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Benoit double murder article

the Randy Orton and Kurt angle information was posted with sources. you can see the video next to them I told you the first time and you still edit them out. I am undoing your edits and leaving you the sources on here.

Randy Orton signing 2004 summerslam poster = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7oEnSQ-dtY

Kurt Angle comparing Samoa Joe to a bigger version of Chris Benoit = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qzNfev4P8s

Elm House

Hello, Please could you note that names of newspapers go in italics. The template for news citations is "cite news" and the name of the newspaper is "work" or "newspaper", either of which automatically renders the name in italics, not "publisher", which doesn't and which we don't use for mainstream media. Thanks -- Alarics (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that @Alarics:, my problem was copying the ref used at Edward Heath containing the same information. At a quick glance it looked right, clearly I should have examined it more thoroughly. I've since corrected the template at Edward Heath. Thanks.LM2000 (talk) 09:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks for replying. -- Alarics (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for participating in the mass effort to improve Roddy Piper's article so it could be featured on the main page as an RD. We did it! starship.paint ~ KO 01:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Starship.paint:. I like the discussion going on now, hopefully the same team can come together to improve other articles in the project.LM2000 (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. We'll see where it goes. starship.paint ~ KO 05:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of films considered the worst, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fade in. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Dont do this. You dont own the WWE pages. Please check the talk page.

I dont know why you guys are so dead set on this, but you guys are wrong and the WWE pages have been wrong for years

BlackDragon 22:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.

Thanks Volid Renc (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Volid Renc: For what?LM2000 (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

It's cool--WillC 09:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Award 4 U

2015 Erasmus Prize
Awarded to the Wikipedia community collectively

Vjmlhds 9talk) 01:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the current dispute

What I am dealing with is clearly someone inserting their own OR, thinking they have the authority or expertise to interpret the meaning of a chart. They continually remove reliable sources I have inserted from the page, that's basically vandalism.

Editing has to be more than "let's see who can edit so many times".

I actually have reached out to the editors I am involved with a dispute with, on talk or user pages, and they have been dismissive and not co-operated with providing sources.

Also, this back and forth has also been interrupted by other editors who have been restoring edits in my direction (ie the 3>4 for Sheamsu) so it's not as if I'm the only one doing that. Ranze (talk) 07:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whyyyy

Okay, I will edit more carefully but can you please tell me why you have removed my edits about the google metrics and about appearing on wrestlemania in 3 different decadedes!!? If they're on The Rock's wiki, either that should be removed or it should be added to taker's page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash3141 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

World Wrestling Entertainment

LM2000 with all due respect, why should WWE be an exception to the rule of that list? All the other promotions have their full names listed and yet many have done business under their initials (TNA, WCW, NWA, AWA). Not all of course (Ring of Honor for example). But it is inconsistent to list World Wrestling Entertainment as WWE and yet leave the others as they are. I'll disengage for the mmoment, but the current listing is definitely wrong and I stand by it. Arguments re it's d/b/a is not relevant to that list. Mega Z090 (talk) 00:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, I'll post the proof here, since Mega, you decided to remove it and "ban" me from your talk page. lol [2], [3], [4] CrashUnderride 22:45, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

Any valid reason for trying to have constructive editors blocked? Percival Pringle (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming you mean Mega Z090? They are being investigated for their behavior. Not to mention multiple edit wars over listing WWE as WWE and not World Wrestling Entertainment, a name it hasn't gone by in 4 years. CrashUnderride 22:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No @Crash Underride:, Pringle is a separate case involving DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou and Phieuxghazzieh; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The abominable Wiki troll. You and GaryColemanFan got to Mega before I didLM2000 (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I've seen DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou edit but not the other one. So I'm outta the loop on it. lol CrashUnderride 22:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It's just curiosity over why I keep getting blocked despite only making constructive edits. Percival Pringle (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Percival Pringle:, your edits as DoubleYouSeaDoubleYou (great username by the way) were largely constructive, though we didn't get along at first. I can see why you weren't bothered by my warnings early on as you have so many disposable accounts. I'm sure we'll meet up in the Legacy section on The Undertaker again sooner rather than later. In the meantime, I'll be the one removing Akash3141's rubbish sources.LM2000 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The many accounts are a necessity, as I always get blocked despite editing positively. I made the mistake of sharing an apartment with people who liked to vandalise Wikipedia (I did too for a while, to be fair), but my intention is to be constructive. I've tried to make amends with the arbitration committee but they don't want any part of it and refuse to acknowledge my good work, like blocking people is too much fun or something. Percival Pringle (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See you space cowboy.LM2000 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well that answers that. lol CrashUnderride 03:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Z090

I'm gonna quote my last two posts on their talk page before I was "banned" from it. lol

Wow, I make a legitimate post, to point out that LM2000 stated the same point I had, but in a more clear manner and you remove it because it's not what you wanna hear? <sarcasm>Great way to move forward with a discussion.</sarcasm> CrashUnderride 15:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's some proof of what we've been saying, you've probably seen it and ignored it as it's not what you want to see/hear. [5], [6], [7]. CrashUnderride 15:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

They proved my point, by removing these posts from the discussion on their talk page. Talk about uncivil. lol CrashUnderride 22:43, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: I'm done responding to him, there's only so many ways I can explain the same thing to him. If he resumes edit warring after his "disengagement", assuming he doesn't get blocked for sockpuppetry, then we'll worry about that then. He has the right to blank his page but he can't "ban" you from his page, I don't mind my talk page holding the comments that he takes most offense to :).LM2000 (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He's disengaged once before on another WWE topic that I was involved with and if I'm not mistaken he went back too it afterwards. And does that include yo momma jokes??? :D CrashUnderride 04:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not easily offended, your yo momma jokes are safe here.LM2000 (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol. If I ever think of a good one, I know where to post it. :D CrashUnderride 04:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another regarding Mega, on a different article though. They say Amy Action is notable, but I got jack squat on a Google search, they say the same about Steve Rackman and I did find stuff about him. So, the whole story is this; Mega says they're notable, yet an IP tag them as not being so. Mega reverted the IP and the IP went to Mega's talk page and told them to stop and that they weren't notable. To try and settle it, I did a Google search, and only two results for Action Amy, here article here and on OWW. However, I did get more for Steve Rackman. So I commented as such:

Now, I know Mega won't believe me, but when I googled Amy Action, all I got was the wiki entry, her profile on OWW and results for Amy Poehler. I don't know why she was in there, but that's what I got. I did get some results for Steve Rackman however. Including an IMDb page. CrashUnderride 05:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Mega replied to the IP blanking the above comment and ignoring it completely. He's reply to the IP made it sound like they were notable because they said so rather than a legitimate reason:

No, they are notable for the reasons I'm quoting and if you revert me once more you are in violation of WP:3RR. Mega Z090 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

My reply:

Seriously, I'm siding with you partially and you STILL remove my comment? Jeez. Either way, you can't just say "Hey, they did this, they're notable." I have no doubt that Action Amy did that, but I found no results for her in a Google search. CrashUnderride 06:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Felt the need to keep you informed of another situation Mega's involved in. CrashUnderride 06:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LM2000 - Crash is banned from my talk page, which is why I am deleting his comments there. He was uncivil sometime ago and posting on my talk page will not garner my attention. If it was possible to place a user on ignore, I'd do it. This is bordering on obsessional. I only came here because Crash tagged me - I suspect unintentionally. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mega, I haven't banned you from my talk page, so you're also free to post whatever you want, even yo momma jokes.LM2000 (talk) 16:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things, a) I didn't tag Mega anywhere in my last post, I even went and looked back at the edit history to see if he removed it, nope. And b) when someone posts evidence that could support your claim, take it, gratefully. I could've just been "Nope, not notable." But I wasn't, I looked past your behavior of ignoring anything your told about WWE's name lately and provided evidence defending you. Then you act childishly and spout off "he's banned from my talk page" crap. Which as LM2000 point out you can't actually do. Ugh my brain hurts. CrashUnderride 17:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]