| Revision as of 20:26, 17 February 2016 editB. Mastino (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users862 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:29, 17 February 2016 edit undoAkash3141 (talk | contribs)328 edits →February 2016Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :::Well can any of you two answer my question on why certain things can be mentioned on some wrestlers' wikis but not others? I'm sorry if I was rude in any way and I want to settle this peacefully. But I still am in doubt about this.--] (]) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | :::Well can any of you two answer my question on why certain things can be mentioned on some wrestlers' wikis but not others? I'm sorry if I was rude in any way and I want to settle this peacefully. But I still am in doubt about this.--] (]) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::What is on other articles has nothing to do with what's on The Undertaker's. Anyway, the Wade Barrett interview was relevant to the Bret Hart page because it bolsters his opinion of Hart vs. Davey Boy Smith being the best match ever. I've put it back into The Undertaker, but it might not be enough to stand on its own. Other than that, you have nothing to say, and none of your other additions have any value at all (hence everyone opposing them). Oh, and running around erasing long-established sections of articles without consensus is vandalism. ] (]) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | ::::What is on other articles has nothing to do with what's on The Undertaker's. Anyway, the Wade Barrett interview was relevant to the Bret Hart page because it bolsters his opinion of Hart vs. Davey Boy Smith being the best match ever. I've put it back into The Undertaker, but it might not be enough to stand on its own. Other than that, you have nothing to say, and none of your other additions have any value at all (hence everyone opposing them). Oh, and running around erasing long-established sections of articles without consensus is vandalism. ] (]) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::::: Actually what about all the records that I added about UT? I noticed that it says on Rock's legacy that he was called the funniest superstar by wwe.com editors, yet appearing at a record 14 consecutive Wrestlemanias is not worthy of being mentioned?? In addition, I have no idea why it was removed that Ross, wwe.com and Nash called Taker the greatest big man because I supplied relevant sources. Furthermore there was all the backstage controversies! On Flair's wiki it states all of them, can't it be similar for UT...!? Angle, HBK, Mantell have all confirmed the main ones actually happening. Then again, having Hart (one of the greatest technicians) say that you can 'make a silk's purse out of a sow's ear' in his autobiography isn't worthy of being mentioned, but Rock appearing on five wrestlemanias is..!? It doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't what's mentioned and what isn't be the same for all wrestlers..??? Oh and btw, is this a new account of that Doubleyouseadoubleyoutalkuser?? Just wondering.. --] (]) 21:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:29, 17 February 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Undertaker
You have absolutely no WP:CONSENSUS for adding your material. You may try to gain it here, rather than continue to violate policy. B. Mastino (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
February 16
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B. Mastino (talk • contribs) 20:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh my god!!? Are you an idiot!!? That blanking of the Taker page WASN'T me! Firstly, i've never even stepped in Pakistan, secondly, why are you adding that Wade Barrett source on Hart's page that wasn't allowed to stay on Taker's page!!!? Woow, you tell me about policy!? Then, you completely contradict EVERYTHING you say about sources etc. and fill Hart's and Rock's legacy with trivia; trivia that is more trivial than the most trivial thing I mentioned in Taker's legacy... Oh yea, sign your comments by the way.--Akash3141 (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- WP:OSE. You're clearly incapable of working with other people. Enjoy your block. B. Mastino (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
February 2016
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Akash3141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I wasn't the one who repeatedly blanked Taker's page. I'm suspecting it was B. Mastino who did it in a childish attempt to get a reason to get me blocked. As for Hart and Rock, my edit history shows on Taker's page shows that I added records which Taker broke that were mentioned on his French wiki and I also added other wrestler's opinions on Taker, such as Flair's, Show's, Jericho's Ross's etc. They are repeatedly taken down with some sort of stupid excuse and then I notice that on other wrestlers wikis, EXACTLY the same sources are used and INFORMATION THAT IS MORE TRIVIAL is mentioned, especially in their legacy. For example, it said on Rock's legacy that he was mentioned to be the funniest star ever which I took down. And then I notice that whatculture.com and bleacherreport.com are used as sources to call wrestlers like Dean Malenko the greatest ever on his wiki, yet, legitimate information about Undertaker breaking records that is on his French wiki isn't allowed to be mentioned here. Soo, Undertaker having the record for appearing at most Wrestlemanias in a row is more trivial than Rock being the funniest superstar, right? Also, Wade Barrett calling Hart, Bulldog, UT etc. is allowed to be mentioned on Hart's page with a source but not on UT's with exactly the same source, right!!? Logic defined in every way. Akash3141 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Basically you're playing a "if I can't have my stuff, you can't have yours" game here with the retaliatory edits. Seems disruptive to me. Calling people idiots and your sarcastic barnstar further add to the concerns. only (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2016 (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.
Akash3141 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ermm No WTH!? According to B. Mastino's edit summary, he also called someone a retard! Besides why are some sources being used on Hart's page but not UT's!!? CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS!!? ALSO, WHY IS INFORMATION MORE TRIVIAL THAN the stuff I mentioned on UT's wiki being mentioned on Rock's legacy!? I'm not playing any game! Rules and sources are same for all wrestlers, right!!? Also, 'Blanked the page' is the kind of thing B. Mastino says and does, suggested by his user talk page edit history. It seems evident by the fact that the IP address hasn't been used for edits before that Mastino decided to blank the page then roughly ten minutes later revert it to make it less obvious that he was blanking the page himself. For this, he should get banned! Not me! Also, i've never even been in Pakistan! I'm in England! So how could it have been me! My IP address is '2.220.128.78' . So there you are! Akash3141 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Please read WP:NOTTHEM. OhNoitsJamie 23:29, 16 February 2016 (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.
- If you reaad the conversation at the noticeboard, the admin who blocked you stated that he didn't believe the IP address was you. So that was not part of your block. only (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Um okay!? Well can you answer my other questions asked above? As for B. Mastino's sarcasm etc. i'm suspecting the blanking of the page was him. Me calling him an idiot is condoned but him calling someone else a 'retard' isn't.. Again, logic at it's best.--Akash3141 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Suspect all you want; you're the one with the reputation. Yeah, I lost my temper with a repeat vandal and called him a name. You've made a career out of insulting people with no provocation whatsoever. B. Mastino (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't condoning his edits...I've never seen his edits. I'm just saying that I came to look into this unblock request as an uninvolved admin and see you calling people idiots on the same page where you're asking for unblock. It's not a good look. only (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well can any of you two answer my question on why certain things can be mentioned on some wrestlers' wikis but not others? I'm sorry if I was rude in any way and I want to settle this peacefully. But I still am in doubt about this.--Akash3141 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- What is on other articles has nothing to do with what's on The Undertaker's. Anyway, the Wade Barrett interview was relevant to the Bret Hart page because it bolsters his opinion of Hart vs. Davey Boy Smith being the best match ever. I've put it back into The Undertaker, but it might not be enough to stand on its own. Other than that, you have nothing to say, and none of your other additions have any value at all (hence everyone opposing them). Oh, and running around erasing long-established sections of articles without consensus is vandalism. B. Mastino (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually what about all the records that I added about UT? I noticed that it says on Rock's legacy that he was called the funniest superstar by wwe.com editors, yet appearing at a record 14 consecutive Wrestlemanias is not worthy of being mentioned?? In addition, I have no idea why it was removed that Ross, wwe.com and Nash called Taker the greatest big man because I supplied relevant sources. Furthermore there was all the backstage controversies! On Flair's wiki it states all of them, can't it be similar for UT...!? Angle, HBK, Mantell have all confirmed the main ones actually happening. Then again, having Hart (one of the greatest technicians) say that you can 'make a silk's purse out of a sow's ear' in his autobiography isn't worthy of being mentioned, but Rock appearing on five wrestlemanias is..!? It doesn't make sense to me. Shouldn't what's mentioned and what isn't be the same for all wrestlers..??? Oh and btw, is this a new account of that Doubleyouseadoubleyoutalkuser?? Just wondering.. --Akash3141 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- What is on other articles has nothing to do with what's on The Undertaker's. Anyway, the Wade Barrett interview was relevant to the Bret Hart page because it bolsters his opinion of Hart vs. Davey Boy Smith being the best match ever. I've put it back into The Undertaker, but it might not be enough to stand on its own. Other than that, you have nothing to say, and none of your other additions have any value at all (hence everyone opposing them). Oh, and running around erasing long-established sections of articles without consensus is vandalism. B. Mastino (talk) 20:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well can any of you two answer my question on why certain things can be mentioned on some wrestlers' wikis but not others? I'm sorry if I was rude in any way and I want to settle this peacefully. But I still am in doubt about this.--Akash3141 (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't condoning his edits...I've never seen his edits. I'm just saying that I came to look into this unblock request as an uninvolved admin and see you calling people idiots on the same page where you're asking for unblock. It's not a good look. only (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)