Damolisher

March 2013

Hello, I'm Mediran. I noticed that you recently removed some content from User talk:222.153.223.5 with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 04:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at List of Shortland Street characters (2015) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - JuneGloom07 Talk 23:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

So, ya gonna send that memo to your pompous little friend who won't stop trying to bully people into her stupid hairsplitting and then telling tales when they're wrong?

I have also warned User:Hatio93 about 3RR. You need to cut out the name calling (WP:CIVIL) and engage in a discussion about the issues you are edit warring about. User:Hatio93 has opened a discussion on the article's talk page. - JuneGloom07 Talk 16:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, just a word of wisdom, citing "WP" articles doesn't *actually* have any effect on me. The article right now is fine as it is, you made additions to it as well which help the articles and I think they're fine as they are. There's nothing to discuss, given that everything is copacetic in its current form. I'd appreciate it in future if Hatio93 would stop trying to police people and citing "vandalism" when there's no vandalism going on and there's nothing wrong with the edits anyone is making as they add rather than detract to and from the article. If a character is called by a name on the show, then that's their name. Damolisher (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I also think you might like to have a word with Hatio93 about being worried more about what they're doing and less about what I'm doing. I'd be open to discussion if there were anything to discuss as evidence by the fact that if Hatio93 would bother looking at the talk page on the Damo Johnson page, and also that Hatio93 would also be wise to understand that while certain editing rules may be useful in several situations, there's also this wonderful concept called "commonsense."

In addition to this, there is also this concept called "teamwork," which Hatio doesn't quite seem to understand unless using it against other users in order to hair split. For example, the Info Box they deleted last night which another user attempted to create. Rather than revert it if it had been complete and working due to "unsourced actor," all Hatio needed to do was find an article where Ryan O'Kane was listed as the new character's actor. After all, the credits list Ryan O'Kane, multiple users can verify the actor is Ryan O'Kane, but if Hatio93 is insistent on 'references' purely for hairsplitting reasons, what was stopping them from simply adding the reference rather than reverting this user's edit?

As evidenced by the multitude of edits I've made elsewhere and the fact that I've interacted with other users with no problem, perhaps Hatio93 might like to stop telling tales on others users, overexaggerating things and attempting to outright lie about things I have or haven't done and, as I stated, focus more on themselves and less about myself. Now, thank you for your time, our correspondence is done, thank you. Damolisher (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Damolisher, I have not been unreasonable in this situation. My revert on the list with the unsourced actor and broken infobox was firstly because I saw it and didn't have much time on my hands to do it properly myself, rather than leave broken and unsourced material readers may see, I reverted it. I also do reverts in this situation with stating my reason behind it in hopes of other editors doing it correctly themselves. I like to push the 'Publish changes' button feeling as if I have edited to the best of my ability and that other editors do not have to 'fix' anything I may have done. I am all about teamwork I think that what something like the WikiProject WP:SOAPS is for. I'm also a main contributor to Neighbours articles along with users like JuneGloom07 and Raintheone and if I disagree with their edits, I would leave a message on their talk page or revert with a reason without been uncivil. The way you have spoken to me and about me is very unreasonable. Also, I have not seen any attempt for yourself to fix the infobox and add a source for the actor at this point in time either. — Hatio93 ^Talk 10:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I rest my case. ;) Damolisher (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

And Hatio93 is back at it again. I wouldn't object to the reverts quite so much if they weren't frivolous and intentional attempts at one-upsmanship. My issue isn't just the "I can do whatever I want while other editors answer to me" attitude, it's the fact that Hatio93 has reached an understanding with themselves that they're in charge of the Shortland Street pages on this website to a pompous degree. I know for a fact if anyone else tried adding nothing for a character but an info box, Hatio93 would remove it. Yet because Hatio93 thinks that quoting Wikiproject rules is the only thing that counts, they're allowed to upload useless blank space? Come on. Damolisher (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstood, I will revert those types of edits regardless of who made them. Even if it was JuneGloom07 or anyone for that matter. You don't seem to understand any wikipedia user is allowed to enforce the wikipedia rule or enforce the consensus on a relevant WikiProject to the topic. I would have no issue with you reverting my edits if you give an adequate reason as to why and link the rule or consensus you are enforcing. At the moment it is all made up or I have been hiding under a rock and haven't heard of the 'rules' you have been speaking about lately in regards to reverting my edits. Dawns section is a reference point as she has always had a section since the article was created by me. She has a redirect link and her section is founded. Infoboxe's aren't always required on lists, sometimes when a character has played a notable part with little information their infobox is hidden. Take List of Neighbours characters (2017)#Jeremy Newell for example. — Hatio93 ^Talk 12:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you ACTUALLY stalking my talk page? That's bloody creepy. What purpose does a blank character profile have? None. You don't see TunaStreet uploading blank character biographies. You also don't seem to see any flaws in yourself given you constantly expect me to edit to your liking while ignoring anything you're doing wrong, but hey. Don't give me that "DA ROOLS THO" BS either. You've reverted several completely legitimate edits people have made, like fixing your (unsourced. Funny that) cock up on Lily Flores, Frank Warner's name, Luke and Ezra's surname and having the bloody gall to revert my edit to Tor Anderton's character history back to being full of spelling and grammar screw-ups out of spite. Here's an idea: if it's unsourced, source it. Don't be a jerk and revert factually correct information because it doesn't have enough references for you and you only. You don't see me or TunaStreet reverting other people's work all the time. We expand it because it's helpful. Damolisher (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No talk page stalking, I came here to send you a message regarding your edits and I found what you had said above. Also, as I have left messages here a few times, the page automatically goes onto my watchlist so I know when you have replied hence how I know about your latest message :). Plus, its very clear you have been stalking my contributions, because as soon as I asked for help from another editor about your edits you seemed to know about it pretty swiftly making a reference to me "telling tales" if I remember correctly. Would you like me to provide a link to you mentioning this in a plot summary? Because I can! Contribution stalking is a little bit embarrassing as a users contributions can not be added to your watchlist, meaning you would have to actually GO to my contributions list to see them. — Hatio93 ^Talk 13:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

And there's the usual Whataboutism I've come to expect along with the missing the point I've come to expect. I was getting at how you show up to complain or reference my talk page whenever you're mentioned.

There's the arrogance again too. You think leaving autogenerated messages is gonna stop me from making perfectly legitimate changes because you think we all have to edit to your standard when myself and others have gotten along rather harmoniously when it comes to editing things. You show up and bam, you don't like it? Nope, can't do that!Damolisher (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Shortland Street characters (2018), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Finn and Frank Warner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Impact

Please, if you want to include Zachary in the Impact roster article, use a source about him signing a contract with the promotion. The YouTube descrption doesn't include it, just saying "debut" doesn't mean "hired by iMPACT" --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 04:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Please, stop. That's one of the reasons Wikipedia admin's don't like pro wrestling. If you want to include some wrestler, you have to find the right source. No "I saw the TV show" or "ey, they upload a video". Use a source about Zachary being hired, no OR or personal assumptions. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because the company indicating he's now working for them is literally the opposite of him.working for them. That's two videos ON IMPACT'S CHANNEL indicating he's hired, the only one contradicting that would be... you. And as far as I'm aware, you're not an Impact employee. So don't tell me to stop when you're the one arguing against Impact themselves. Damolisher (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's how Wikipedia works. Not assumption, no personal deductions. Sources. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Which part of "here's his debut" on one video and "here's his new theme and video" on another is assumption? Damolisher (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Eveything. Sources doesn't say Impact hired him. 1 says it's his first match, second is a theme. He can be gone next week, since Impact operates like ROH, using a lot of no-hired talent. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Major League Wrestling, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fenix (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

File:MLW Logo 2018.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Major League Wrestling

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to professional wrestling. Before continuing to make edits that involve professional wrestling, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TomStar81 (Talk) 18:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MLW Logo 2018.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MLW Logo 2018.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Checkuser block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The Lee depature was reported by a reliable source. After that, he denied it. Its not necessary the personal attack about "you dont follow impact". This kind of things happend all the time. Also, 90% of my edits are based on sources, i dont watch everything i edit.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

It's hardly a personal attack, but one would think that in order to have proper credibility, you'd watch something before you edit it. I for example wouldn't edit an article on Astrophysics since I don't know what I'm talking about. Trying to enforce bureaucracy as you do is neither helpful nor does it make people think highly of you. For example, instead of reverting the Rascalz edit, you simply could have seeked out a source and edited it in as Chaosithe does once a proper source does when one becomes available rather than reverting people's edits because you don't believe the person who edited it in. And lo and behold, you were wrong and wound up making yourself look arrogant and obstinate rather than helpful. The same is true for the Trevor Lee edit. The same goes for the Allie edit you keep reverting. James Mitchell has never been shown as a manager. He appears exclusively in background segments as someone she has sold her soul to. I very, very rarely see you making useful edits to the Impact Wrestling Personnel page. Oftentimes, it's simply you trying to dictate things to people when you're incorrect and in the wrong regardless of what the guidelines are. One of the tenets as far as I'm aware of Wikipedia is good faith. You have none. You seem to try and lord over people. There is where my issue lies.

Damolisher (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

First of all, it's not necessary every time I edit Impact roster, saying "you don't see Impact". When I said it, it means I see the article with more perspective. First, the pro wrestling article recieved a lot of backlash from Admins since the have a lot of In Universe stuff and don't follow Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia has rules and the articles must follow the rules. One is sourcing. Impact and other promotions, like ROH, use outside talent (ROH used Sandman, Raven also appeared during the last Impact tapings). The point of the personnel is to include people under contract. So, if there is no source about them signing a contract, they're out (Or appear in the Website). I see everyday PWInsider and 411Mania and I never saw a souce about Impact hiring Rascalz. It's not about I don't trust people, Wikipedia is based in souces, If I include something without a source, nobody will trust me. As I said, I edit PROGRESS, Ring Warriors, MLW, ROH and I don't watch their shows, but I see reliable sources. If PWInsider says James Storm left MLW, I don't need to watch the show, he is out. About Mitchell, the roster is kayfabe free. He is the on-screen mentor, but he is not a real life mentor. So, or he is a manager or the note is out, since we don't include this kind of thing (some people may think mentor as a real life mentor, not a kayfabe one). It's like John Cena as a freelancer. Cena is not a freelancer, he is signed with WWE, if we include a note with his freelance status, it would be wrong. I'm always open to talk and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But it's hard when I try to explain people about Wikipedia rules and the answer is "I don't care about Wikipedia rules". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Damolisher. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Damolisher. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Crazy Steve

Please, include Crazy Steve on the roster with a proper source showing he signed with the promotion, no just he worked yesterday. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Surely even you can put 2 and 2 together and realise that they wouldn't simply put him out there on Impact versus a jobber just for shits and giggles. He worked the tapings, he posted the Impact Wrestling logo on his Instagram, he won the match. If it were say, Steve versus... I dunno, Eli Drake, for example and he lost, then yeah, he's more than likely not getting used again. But when they're putting him on Impact against a jobber, putting him over and he's hinting he's working for the company again... come on, man. You're literally just being obstructive because of a power trip behind a keyboard. This is the Rascalz situation all over again. This is the third time you've done this and the third time you're wrong in doing so.

Damolisher (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully: it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions to curtail disruption in articles related to professional wrestling. Before continuing to make edits that involve professional wrestling, please read the full description of these sanctions here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

LM2000 (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you've already received a sanctions notice. Just know that if you continue to restore unsourced or poorly sourced content you could face editing restrictions.LM2000 (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

How about you don't threaten me and you don't dictate to me what I can and can't edit? If you're wrong, I'm going to return the information back to the article. I'm not going to be bullied by you or HHHPedrigree. Damolisher (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Uncivil

Read WP:UNCIVIL. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You know what gets really tiring? When someone us frequently in the wrong, yet refuses to admit they're ever in the wrong. 118.149.253.159 (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at List of Impact Wrestling personnel, you may be blocked from editing. StaticVapor message me! 07:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of Impact Wrestling personnel. StaticVapor message me! 08:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Original research

"No original research?" They're spoilers from the bloody show! Do we need signed and dotted confirmation from Impact officials themselves nowadays? The same could be said for you: Disruptive editing and self-appointed policing to the point of obstructiveness.

Damolisher (talk) 08:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

To start WrestlingInc is one of the most unreliable sources out there. I am sure they are giving accurate spoilers, but nothing they say is reliable to us. For a list of reliable sources see WP: PW/RS. Second, the source you cited does not even say they are signed to the company. It says nothing of the sort. That is WP: OR and WP: SYNTH. If you continue to edit disruptivly you could be blocked again. Your edit summary was very uncivil and did not assume good faith. StaticVapor message me! 08:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, and which part of frequently undoing other people's edits based upon "you're wrong because I say so" is good faith again?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Damolisher (talk • contribs)

I do not recall interacting with you before. You are violating a Wikipedia policy against WP: OR. If you do not change your ways you may end up blocked from editing. StaticVapor message me! 08:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Uhhhh, the fact you literally undid my edit on the List of Impact Personnel page twice says you've interacted with me. That's what I'm getting at. Damolisher (talk) 08:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

There would not be a problem if you were not violating Wikipedia policy with your edits to the page. StaticVapor message me! 08:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Except I'm not. You're literally just going "You're wrong because I say so." Damolisher (talk) 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I clearly explained why, reread my messages and click the links I have provided to you. Mainly WP: SYNTH. StaticVapor message me! 08:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And for the umpteenth time as I've explained to you- the source is valid, the source's sources are valid, it's a valid edit, you just refuse to be wrong. Damolisher (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

WrestlingInc is listed as an unreliable source at WP: PW/RS. That is besides the point. The source you are providing does not say "they will now be appearing for Impact Wrestling" or "now signed to Impact Wrestling". You are jumping to that conclusion on your own. StaticVapor message me! 08:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

THEY SOURCED THEIR RESULT FROM TWITTER FROM PEOPLE AT THE SHOW. YOU ARE SAYING YOU KNOW MORE THAN PEOPLE AT THE SHOW. You're intentionally ignoring the obvious to be a bureaucrat. That's what it boils down to. I expect an apology once I'm proven right. Damolisher (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

Your recent editing history at List of Impact Wrestling personnel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. StaticVapor message me! 02:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, with you because you don't listen to reason. I'm *still* not going to be bullied by jargon. Damolisher (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note

Hi, my name's Tony and I'm an admin and CheckUser on Wikipedia. Another user is concerned that you edited logged out previously. I have not looked at the technical data, and wouldn't comment publicly even if I had, but if this is the case please avoid doing so in the future and always remember to log in when editing contentious topic areas where you are active. Thanks! TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

List of Impact Wrestling personnel

Hi there. Please refrain from reverting edits that contribute positively to the page, such as filling in references. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 04:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edits weren't helpful, they removed several useful links as well as reverting several pieces of information back to incorrect status. Refrain yourself.

Damolisher (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

If you looked more carefully, you would see that all of the existing links remained on the page. What I did was simply utilize the named references feature to make multiple uses of the same inline citations per WP:CS and WP:REFNAME. Do familiarize yourself with those guidelines. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 03:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't patronize me. You removed direct links to profiles which prove the wrestlers in question work for the company. You for whatever reason also removed pieces of information pertaining to the on-air product. It made the article worse, not better. Damolisher (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Do check all of the links again. I guarantee you all of the links that you claim I "removed" are still on the page, which brings me back to WP:CS and WP:REFNAME. Did you get a chance to look at those guidelines yet? If not, I'd still strongly recommend it. Have a great weekend! KyleJoan^talk 10:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh goody! I have one who isn't just obnoxious, they're passive-aggressive too! You removed profiles for the Lucha Bros and the Radcalz. Not an improvement. You removed people James Mitchell is managing without proof, not an improvement. You removed links which had sourced information, not an improvement. It's bad enough myself and others have to deal with bureaucrats whenever we want to edit the Impact Personnel article, we shouldn't have to deal with passive-aggressive ones who wreck the thing too. Damolisher (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. StaticVapor message me! 22:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh wonderful! Attempted bullying yet again. Damolisher (talk) 23:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has been lifted, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

In addition, you have been blocked for expressing contempt for and refusal to comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, incivility toward editors who have tried to convince you to comply with our policies and guidelines, and failure to collaborate with those editors. Indefinite does not mean forever. If you read and study the policies and guidelines, and make a firm and convincing commitment to to abide by them and collaborate with your fellow editors instead of attacking them, then you can be unblocked by any administrator. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I read all the diffs and more. The main problem here is not your incivility although that is a severe complicating factor. Instead, the really big problem is that you aggressively disregard Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and have nothing but contempt for them.

You repeatedly dismiss Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as "technical jargon" and "pointless rigmarole". Evidence of your contempt for policies and guidelines is "Ask anyone who edits these articles and they don't have the foggiest as to what the hell "WP BLEH BLEH" is." Another example is "Y'know, just a word of wisdom, citing "WP" articles doesn't *actually* have any effect on me." A third example is "Don't give me that "DA ROOLS THO" BS either." I see no evidence that you have ever read or tried to understand the policies and guidelines that you reject out of hand. Those are the very policies and guidelines that have made Wikipedia the #5 website in the world, so your refusal to engage with them is both mystifying and unacceptable.

When you encounter other editors who try to explain the importance of our policies and guidelines, you call them "bureaucrats", "bullies", "obnoxious" and "passive-aggressive". You accuse them of "hairsplitting", "harassment", "arrogance", "wasting my time", "one-upsmanship", "bloody gall", and "being obstinate". Evidence of your contempt for editors who attempt to convince you to comply with policies and guidelines is "So, ya gonna send that memo to your pompous little friend who won't stop trying to bully people into her stupid hairsplitting and then telling tales when they're wrong?"

An editor who engages in mild incivility in defense of our policies and guidelines can be excused with a request to continue their work in a more civil fashion. An editor who is consistently uncivil in the process of battling against and undermining our policies and guidelines is an entirely different matter. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked you, while noting that "indefinite" does not mean "forever". In order to be unblocked, you must read and understand our policies and guidelines, and make a firm commitment to comply with them 100% of the time in the future, and to take the path of collaboration rather than contempt toward your fellow editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

My contempt isn't for the rules and regs, it's for the people who attempt to use them in a way which is done purposely to minimize the contributions of others. StaticVapor, HHHPedrigree and whoever their associate are seem to find it is their prerogative to hang around a page, police others and make disruptive edits all while attempting to use wikipedia guidelines to do so. If you notice, since my previous block, every incident you speak of has involved one of those three. HHHPedrigree himself admits to not watching Impact Wrestling, yet feels like his word is somehow more important than sourced information, as does StaticVapor. I've told them before that I'm perfectly happy for them to alter information with sources which apply to guidelines, yet they would rather waste the time of myself and others by deleting perfectly correct additions to articles because according to them and solely according to them, my sources and the sources of other editors aren't good enough.

StaticVapor and HHHPedrigree would have you believe that I am trying to divert blame by calling what they're doing harassment. What else do you call it when every single time I make an addition to the talk page of the Impact Wrestling personnel page or the main page itself, one of those two are there to either undo or alter my additions. Is that not suspicious? As I say- I have no issue following rules, I have an issue when those rules are thrown at me in such a way it wastes my time and is used to prevent me from making positive edits to pages. That's my problem. And I wouldn't have engaged in conflict with this group were they not simply using alleged regulations to bully others.Damolisher (talk) 06:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

And to the person who made the unnecessary comment about "unrepentant response", again, please state which part of bullying anand harassment is civil? Or is that perfectly fine provided the user can quote wiki jargon?Damolisher (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

So... Am I talking to myself here? You repeatedly cite alleged disruptive edits, while citing year to multiple year old disputes which have long since internally being settled with other editors. I feel like I'm in essence talking to someone who only wishes to see one side of a story and is using old information to make a snap judgment based on one editor who feels that they have reign over other people. If you'd check the List of Impact Wrestling Personnel page, you'll see StaticVapor just ignored a valid edit and undid it because he didn't agree with the source, even though Chaosithe provided a corroborating source in his edit. I think this proves my point about StaticVapor, personally speaking. Damolisher (talk) 07:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)