User talk:LifeStroke420/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:LifeStroke420. 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 1

October 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to One Night Stand (2007). Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Gscshoyru 15:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on One Night Stand (2007). 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 that gains a consensus among editors. Bfigura ^(talk) 15:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. -- Merope 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Merope 15:53, 22 October 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).

LifeStroke420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because Im right here. The page doesnt need all that cruft. NONE of the other wrestling articles have it. The information need to be in the individual articles not in the page.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not an acceptable way to change an article. I cannot see any evidence that you even tried to discuss your desired changes on the talk page. — FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 22 October 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.

One Night Stand (2007)

The reason for the "cruft" as put it, is that User:Davnel03 managed to create a separate article for several PPVs that was well sourced. The project would be better off if all PPVs had a page like ONS 2007 does. There is no reason to remove it, it's perfectly sourced. Another similar article recently passed GA review and has been promoted. If you're going to make so major a change, discuss it on the talk page (as Davnel did when he decided to create the article in the first place. Gavyn Sykes 16:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Both SummerSlam (1993) and December to Dismember (2006) use this format and have been promoted to Good Article status. Several more articles are currently being expanded, including One Night Stand (2007). The goal is to have a full report on all pay per views sometime down the road. GaryColemanFan 22:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See? Why didnt someone tell me this?LifeStroke420 04:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason is because you kept reverting my edits, and left a personal insult on my talkpage. Davnel03 12:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? After I reverted the first time you came on here and threatened me. Thats unexceptable. Im gonna report you for it unless i recieve a apology.LifeStroke420 15:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I never threatened you. I left a warning on your userpage (which is mandatory for most people if I see them vandalise). You removed the info here without discussing it at the talkpage. Hence, why I left you this warning. Instead of attempting of discuss it, you left a personal insult on my talkpage. Personal insults are not tolerated on Wikipedia. Davnel03 15:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok your supposed "warning" was a threat. It was in a threatful manner and it was rude. I didnt personnally insult you. You told me if i reverted the edit one more time you would ban me. It was my first revert and it was days old. Thats a threat. Now why don't you apologize and well end this whole mess.LifeStroke420 15:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a warning the template labels it as a warning. If you have a problem with that, take it up with WP:UW, preferably on this page. I apologise if it came across to you as a threat, but it wasn't intended as a threat. Davnel03 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You used the wrong template.LifeStroke420 16:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you work that out? On a side note, you should be able to edit the article mainspace now. Davnel03 16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How do i work what out? Also im blocked until 4 for some reason its 2 right now.LifeStroke420 17:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you could. You could start writing a PPV if you wanted too. Tell me a WWE PPV DVD that you have that you like, and we'll go from there. Davnel03 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

RE: DX

I'm not getting in an edit war over this, as, in all honesty I agree wholeheartedly with you. But others disagree and point to the episode of Raw last week as the source. During the discussion it came to light that unfortunately, this is all open to interpretation so we came to a compromise that satisfied both sides, we leave them in the article but put (honorary member) next to their names. This was the consensus. However, as I type this (I was going to point the discussion out on the user's talk page), I realize the editor who opposed the view we share is now suspected of sock puppetry, so until that clears up I guess it's okay to leave it the way it is. I would point you to the discussion I had with him about this and the consensus reached, but if he's engaged in sock puppetry, he will be blocked and his edits reverted. Bmg916^Speak 20:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so it appears that user was blocked as a sockpuppet. I'm going to leave it the way it is then, since no one else but the user who was blocked as a sockpuppet really opposes it. Bmg916^Speak 20:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 1995

What is your source that it was not the last PPV to use the classic WWF logo? The next PPV (WrestleMania XII) used the new generation logo. TJ Spyke 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was first introduced in 1994 ([1]. It became the main logo around late 1994/early 1995 (I don't remember when exactly) and was the logo until they introduced the scratch logo in early 1998. TJ Spyke 02:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Royal Rumble 2008

I was looking at the edit history of this page and found this curious. You consider the WWE Title match (which has already been confirmed, with the winner of the Triple H/Jeff Hardy match at Armageddon getting a WWE Title match at RR) crystal balling, but don't consider the RR match (which has not been announced) crystal balling? TJ Spyke 03:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, the WWE title match has been announced and confirmed while the Rumble match has not. Yes the Rumble match will almost certainly happen, but matches only get added when they are announced. As for the logos, they are different logos. TJ Spyke 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: NWO

Read here. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah! Mshake3 (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at WWE No Way Out‎. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You should watch out, because you've already violated it and someone (not me) might report you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personnel attacks by LifeStroke420.) Sandstein (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No Way Out

It's NOT that simple. WP:PW consensus has changed. Indemand has been deemed a reliable source via the project. Please stop removing the match. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see THIS. D.M.N. (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

@LifeStroke, the sooner you accept that iND is as reliable a source as your seemingly prized WWE TV site, the better. ArcAngel (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Annoying user

I agree with you. Arcangel has some serious problems and sees everything as a reason for agruement. He may be a sockpuppet. Beastmix (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User Warnings

You do realise, that no matter how many times you decide to remove warnings that they are still viewable in the page history? On a side note, normally when you start a PPV article you should really complete it instead of "dumping it". D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean "you haven't abandoned it"? You clearly have, you have yet to start the "Event" section, and haven't completed the "Background" section. If you start a PPV article, you should finish it. D.M.N. (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Breakdown: In Your House

Will you be editing this article any time soon? If not, it will be put up for grabs.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Starrcade 1994

If you click on the image (to go to the image page), you will see that it is the Starrcade 1994 cover. I don't know why it shows up as the BATB cover on the Starrcade page though, probably just an error. TJ Spyke 18:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I will look for an admin who is experienced with images. TJ Spyke 18:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sinestro Corps

Hey man, thanks for removing that bit about Booster Gold naming the corps. We were both on the same page about it on the discussion page, but I didn't want to get into an edit war over it, so I threw the fact tag on it. I'm still learning the ropes so I can apprehensive about editing, sometimes. Hazardous Matt 15:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XXIV

Please do not call edits like this vandalism, and please do not revert to make a point. If you have a problem with how the article currently looks please discuss it on the talkpage instead of edit-warring on the article. Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

TNA WHC history/NWA debate

This video was released before noon on May 13, 2007 hours before the TNA Sacrifice PPV went on the air. Nowhere in the official NWA announcement was it stated that TNA had the rights to the titles until midnight. This official announcement made it clear that Team 3D and Cage had been immediately stripped of their NWA Championships. Therefore the titles that were defended were interim TNA titles at the very least only represented by the NWA belts but they were NOT the NWA titles. Because of this the title reigns that began/ended during the period of time between the PPV and the Impact episode in which the TNA titles were officially introduced are by default considered unofficial TNA title reigns. Hope that clears up any confusion. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, because the NWA are the owners of the NWA titles, the announcement that was made BEFORE the event here [2] was official and automatically overruled anything the TNA announcer said. If you actually did have the event on tape you would have seen the while Jeremy Borash did mistakenly announce Cage as the NWA champ, the graphics below his name only referred to him as the World Heavyweight Champion. The announcers through out the show even did the same and only referred to him as the World Heavyweight Champion, not even making mention of the NWA. This proves that while the title may not have been the official TNA title, it was at least an interim - unofficial TNA title. The NWA stripped both of their title holders HOURS before the show. This meant that going into the PPV whether TNA liked it or not, their champions where no longer NWA champions. Per WP:PW, we do not follow TNA retconning under any circumstance, as Wikipedia is an information database that follows facts as they occur and not as they are revisioned weeks after occurring.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WrestleMania XXIV. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. –L A X 22:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2008 (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).

LifeStroke420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm just going with the consensus that was previously ruled that the match was not a career threatening match. I even opened it back up for discussion until then i will not let them vandalise the page

Decline reason:

Clear edit warring against multiple editors. — Yamla (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2008 (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.

WrestleMania XXIV

Consensus changes all the time. The consensus only applied to the "Results" section. Edit-warring is vandalism. If you have a problem, please discuss it at WT:PW. D.M.N. (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't be sarcastic. Me, Robj1981, LAX & Mshake3 have reverted your edits within the past 48 hours. Edit-warring further will lead to a longer block. D.M.N. (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion (located here had nothing to do with the lead. It was only discussing the results section. You have no reason for removing that part from the lead as it was not being discussed. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WrestleMania XXIV. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. CIreland (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this is now moot; I have since protected the page. CIreland (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hi, could you identify the vandalism you were referring to here please. I could not find it after a quick inspection of the page. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, vandalism is not "exceptable/acceptable" whatsoever. You must not vandalise, so please don't implify that you can vandalise. Also, please contribute to the discussion about WrestleMania XXIV being protected at WT:PW. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Lee M. on Batman

Lee Meriwether appeared as Catwoman in the related movie but played a different character in the TV series itself. Julie Newmar played Catwoman for the first two years of the TV series, followed by Eartha Kitt. Lee M. never appeared as Catwoman in the series, just the movie. Doczilla _STOMP! 04:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sandman

I've started a discussion here. Can you participate? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: I thought so

Regarding this edit, I don't doubt its verity, however, Wikipedia requires visible sources (especially for dates). Have you read WP:REF? That should get you started. I'm sure Wal-Mart.com has a clear source? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Sting

Sure. And for the record, I don't agree with the new consensus either but it's what FA reviewers want. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

WrestleMania XI

Please do not remove sourced material from an article, as you did with WrestleMania XI without discussing it on the talk page first. Thanks, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to WrestleMania XI, you will be blocked from editing. D.M.N. (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to WrestleMania XI. Marek.69 ^talk 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The "Reception" section is intended to show how the event was received by a variety of sources. The opinions of reviewers are, of course, their own point of view (which includes a bias). Without giving examples of reviewer's thoughts, there would be no Reception section, however. The article has undergone a Good Article review, and due to the way the source is being used, it was determined that it was fine. Please do not delete the information again, or you will be reported to WP:AIV. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WrestleMania XI. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point that, for something like a revier from 411mania's opinion, there is no source more valid than 411mania. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

LifeStroke420, per your message on my talk page, the source for the section you are removing is valid. If you disagree, you should discuss it on the WrestleMania XI talk page. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

24 hours for edit-warring on WrestleMania XI. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed your personal attack here. I never "threatened" you... I simply warned you that continuation to edit-war would result in a block. And seeing as you want it removed you should have started a discussion, see WP:BRD. 1) You made an edit --> 2) Someone reverted --> 3) You disagree with the revert --> 4) Take it to the talkpage or WT:PW. D.M.N. (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (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).

LifeStroke420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not only am I removing unvalid sourced information i was threatened for it this is just unfair I think that if someone would just take the time to look over the edit that they would see im not just right but also a good comtributer to this site

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, the three-revert rule applies to us all the time- even when we know we're right. Especially when we know we're right. If you find yourself in this situation again, read through WP:DISPUTE for some better ways to get the best information into the article without edit-warring. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:40, 28 February 2009 (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.

"im not just right but also a good comtributer to this site" - you've been blocked several times for edit-warring... this isn't your first block for edit-warring. You're lucky the block is only 24 hours long. D.M.N. (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think you are to try to tell me im not a good editor? Your gonna tell me youve never made a mistake? This time I AM right the last timeI wasnt. Stay off my page if you dont have anything to contribute.LifeStroke420 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Your Message

Hi, I've left a response to your message on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've left you another response on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 20:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Another response on my talk page -- Marek.69 ^talk 21:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

and again Marek.69 ^talk 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

WrestleMania XI

Dude, you JUST got off a 24 hour block for removing the review and you start doing it AGAIN? Bring it up on the articles talkpage instead of removing a valid review for no reason. TJ Spyke 04:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is alway bias in any list or review. There is no set list of Best or Worse anything, it's always just the opinion of whoever makes the list. WrestleMania XI is one of the more poorly received WM's, maybe that's why there are more negative reviews to be found. TJ Spyke 04:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from finding another source? TJ Spyke 04:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You are on the cusp of violating the 3 revert rule again. Didn't you learn anything last time? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 20:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Supposed harassment

Go ahead and report, my edits are clearly not harassment. I am a member of the Pokemon WikiProject, the Pokemon article has been on my watchlist for years, and I have made several substantial edits to it in that time. For some reason the films listing shows the secondary dub release dates as opposed to the original Japanese release dates. For your information, the dub release dates areapproximately one year behind those of the original, hence why the 12th film is being released in 2009. Post on WP:Harassment if you want to, I really don't care if you do or not. Here, I'll even provide a link to the first step for you to save you the time. It is clear to any outside observers that my edits do not constitute harassment. So go ahead, do it. But until you learn how to seperate reality from fiction, I'd advise you to not make idiotic claims and arguments as you have been doing in your interactions with me so far. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Please explain to me exactly how my above comment could be construed as being sexual harassment. If you are so concerned, I am more than happy to initiate a discussion at WP:ANI so that your concerns can be addressed.

I have seen nothing productive about your behaviour on here so far, and through your interactions with me it seems that your only reason for being on here is to annoy and cause others strife. If you do not take your claims of harassment against me to ANI, then I shall take my own concerns regarding your behaviour to them. Accusing other editors of harassment and sexual harassment with these unfounded claims is not something to be taken lightly, and I will take it up with ANI if you continue this. Of course, if you are really so concerned that my behaviour constitutes harassment and sexual harassment, then please drop them a line first. Though given your tendency to accuse every editor who reverts your edits or tries to engage in discussion with you of "threatening" you I do not believe that you will be taken very seriously, especially when the administrators actually look at our discussion history. MelicansMatkin (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

It's no problem, I spent about an hour trying to figure it out when I archived for the first time. I had no idea how subpages worked back then. No worries about the Pokemon article either, we've all made honest mistakes like that before. MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is once again to keep it at WrestleMania XXV and he moves it anyways, then yes I will report him. He used to be such a good editor. TJ Spyke 19:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit

Neutrally, I find that a disambig page is vital in this particular situation. Thus, I reverted your change. I just wanted to ask why it is that you want the page to remain a redirect since you really haven't given a reason. On a side note, I would also like to point out that you appear to have broken the Three revert rule. As a result, you could be blocked for reverting. Anyway, just a heads up. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

This edit summary is entirely unacceptable. Accusing editors of being terrorists is so much beyond the pale I'm amazed you weren't blocked already. Consider yourself done with Wikipedia.

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated and egregious personal attacks (including but not limited to baseless accusations of harassment and ad hominem attacks) and relentless edit-warring. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 08:32, 16 April 2009 (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).

LifeStroke420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It was a joke besides that previously the editor that blocked me has been harrasing my page anyways. I stopped reverting the edits once I saw that enough editors thought it should be there and I went to the page and put in my part on the discussion. To Block me indef is unfair as I havent really done anything wrong besides jokingly calling someone a terrorist. It was a joke grow up and take off the indef part if you want to block me fine but not permanently thats just not fair.

Decline reason:

The admin who blocked you has been warning you of potential consequences should your behavior continue. When it did, you were blocked. Calling people terrorists is not funny, and obviously wasn't taken as a joke. Edit warring is similarly unacceptable; when you are reverted, you discuss it then, you do not continue to revert and call others vandals. I'd suggest you take a look at this guide before your next appeal - your request will not be accepted so long as you tell us to "grow up." Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:02, 16 April 2009 (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).

LifeStroke420 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Ok let me put it another way maybe it wasnt funny to some people I thought it was if I offended somebody then I am truly sorry. I have been trying to do better with the edit warring I really have and I honestly thought it was just somebody vandalising the page if you will take a look at the history there has been alot of it on there lately and there is a big war going on on the page right now. I dont want to be blocked from editing I like wikipedia and I know Im not perfect but nobody is. Block me but dont Ban me thats all Im asking for.

Decline reason:

This is not a refusal to unblock you, I'm just removing this template until you find someone willing to mentor you. Follow the instructions below; when you've found someone, put up a new unblock template so we know you've answered. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:01, 17 April 2009 (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.

Block has been reviewed at ANI

See the thread at WP:ANI#Need neutral(er) admin to doublecheck my block, opened by Jeremy to seek review of his own action. EdJohnston (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

There is discussion underway about the possibility of your being unblocked. One of the items that has been suggested is that you enroll either in WP:ADOPT or WP:MENTOR. Would you be agreeable to enrolling in one of those programs? John Carter (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

absolutely I would I dont fully know how to do some stuff on here and it would help me.LifeStroke420 (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The blocking admin has agreed to unblock you, with the proviso that the next edit-war or accusation you make will be your last. I have to agree. We cannot allow anyone to continue disruptive behavior indefinitely. However, there does seem to be some consensus to give you one last, and I mean last, chance, but I sincerely hope neither I nor MelicansMatkin come to regret giving it to you. The one question that comes to mind to me is whether you would feel more comfortable enrolling in the WP:ADOPT or WP:MENTOR program, and that decision is up to you. I do believe the blocking admin might want a formal answer from you here before agreeing to unblock, so I believe we are all awaiting your response. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What is the deal with you, LifeStroke420? I have watched your progress ever since I posted on your page a while ago. I don't understand why you continue to be "disruptive". Perhaps a mentor or being adopted would help. User:Sticky Parkin adopts people with good success, I believe. I very much hope you give adoption a try. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 23:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Once you find someone willing to adopt or mentor you, tell me whom it is on this talk page and I'll unblock you. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

How do I do that if im blocked?LifeStroke420 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You are still able to email people by clicking the "Email this user" link in the toolbox to the left of their userpage. To do so, you will need to enable and confirm your own email address within Special:Preferences. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi LifeStroke, I am an adopter and if you would like any sort of help, I am willing to adopt. But you have to really want to make a go of it here.:) Sticky Parkin 12:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, MelikansMatkin and myself have agreed to offer you a joint adoption/mentorship. If you would prefer that option, just say as much here and which option (adoption or mentorship) you prefer. John Carter (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry John, Mattisse suggested it on my talk, and I'd not cauught up with the AN/I thread before I offered.:) Sticky Parkin 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If you want to be the adopter/mentor, I could certainly live with it. John Carter (talk) 16:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on the convo above, I've unblocked since Sticky Parkin's willing to adopt. Hopefully adoption works. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 16:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Parkin for helping me out and I promise I will do my best.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's just common sense really, I think you know what you need to do differently. I'll keep an eye on you and message you if I think you're having any problems or at risk of them, and feel free to leave me a message on User talk:Sticky Parkin if you want any help or advice about anything, such as how to negotiate with other editors in any wiki-discussion you might encounter, over your changes or theirs. You can also email me through the site's 'email this user' bit, which you can find usually to the left of their page. Sticky Parkin 20:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The key is not to 'attack' other editors and assume that they mean well. Sticky Parkin 20:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Idea!

Why don't you ask Sticky Parkin to help you fix up your WP:userpage? It is a good way to learn about Wikipedia markup, and you can put links on it to articles that you might need to read and understand. You can also put links to show you articles to fix up, like the one over too the right. And get the Signpost delivered, so you can keep up with Wikipedia happenings. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia:ARS/Tagged

Wiki-markup is not the easiest of things, but you're welcome to put this box on your page, Lifey. You could also look at people's user pages and see if there's anything you think looks nice, coloured boxes etc. Go in the edit window and copy the bit of code you think makes the part you like, and paste it into your own page, filling the content in with your own words. If you see an 'effect' on someone's page you like, let me know and I'll try and help you make it, or you could ask the person themselves. Sticky Parkin 21:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I'll be your therapist for this morning.

Hello LifeStroke420, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate}

Use that to get around. Now. I'd like to tell you a story of my ordeal with an admin known as Daniel. I put up a prank banner and he deleted it. I was angry at him and told him off. When an edit war began I was very upset. Locked out of my own userpage. I pleaded to have it back and attempted apology to Dan, only to get into a massive argument about how selfish I had been. What tipped me over the edge was being called "immature" by users such as Metros I nearly committed wikicide. Luckily, I am adopted by the same person (Sticky) and she gave me Wikiprozac. What you must know is Admins are NOT evil, they are doing a job. You have a right to tell them what they are doing is dislikeable, and they have a right to be sensible about it. Don't label them 'evil'. The same goes for bureaucrats, deletionists and inclusionists. As Bart would say, "Don't have a cow, man". Also, try not to lose your cool when blocked. Calmly say, 'why has this happened?' to whoever blocked you, and negotiate, tell how you promise to improve. Finally, always AGF people and when vandalised (especially vandalised/stalked like I was) keep the lid on and undo. If it gets bad or nasty, refer to a friendly admin. Here are people to talk to when in need: Mush, Defrag, or Sticky. For a laugh, see: La Pianista or Darkside. For a good ol' British chat, see Chubbennaitor. For a good ol' british chat or therapy, see Mysteryman.

Good luck on Wikipedia, kid.

--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate}

Dare you look at the horror I went through? Click here if you dare...--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 11:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Your reversion of Superboy-Prime

Out of curiosity, I was wondering why you changed my edit on Superboy-Prime. This is in no way an angry post... I just do not understand this particular change. Superboy Prime's fate is a point of contention amongst fans of DC Comics, and has been adressed only ambiguously by DC's head honcho Dan Didio. Deadkord42 (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I was not upset. I simply asked a question. Note that in my first message right above this one I said, "in no way is this an angry post." It wasn't. As I am new to Wikipedia editing procedures, I was just trying to understand the reason for the removal of a comment. Nothing more. Your reply to me was nothing short of rude and uncivilized, and your behavior has been noted. I thought you would simply explain to me in a helpful way. Guess not. Deadkord42 (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Blackest Night #6

Blackest Night #6 is out. I got it at my comic shop yesterday. I know a lot of other people who purchased it as well. Deadkord42 (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)