194.28.124.52

American Hockey League and the Springfield Falcons

The Springfield Falcons' relocation to Tucson is not a special case and does not need a specific mention of where they are relocating outside of American Hockey League#Timeline and American Hockey League#AHL teams of the past and present. When you have a league where over two-thirds of the teams have relocated over 80 years, a single relocation is not that notable. It is marked, it already has multiple links, and it is not very significant and will be marked as relocation note x as the 24th franchise with a relocation in its history on that table in less than one months time. No need to currently fill up a bunch of notes with slight variations. Yosemiter (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Panini CEs

Regarding Template:Panini CEs, I am not a part of the dispute and do not wish to debate it either direction. But I do see there is conflict in the editing history. This is out of my area of knowledge to assist with. If it would help you, there is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics where you can start a dialog and ask what you want about that template and what is happening. Hopefully, there are people at that project who have some insight to share. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.★Trekker (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Straight from the Starrcade article

"The main event was between Hollywood Hogan (nWo) and Sting (WCW) for the WCW World Heavyweight Championship. Nick Patrick, who had favored the nWo before, was chosen as the referee through a random drawing. The match started with Hogan delivering attacks. Sting fought back with dropkicks, and applied the side headlock. Hogan sent Sting out of the ring, and attacked him with the ringpost and guard rail. Hogan performed a big boot, and pinned Sting after a leg drop. However, Bret Hart claimed Patrick counted the pinfall fast, and restarted the match with himself as the referee. Sting performed a Stinger splash, and applied the Scorpion Deathlock. Hart called for the bell (referencing the Montreal Screwjob) and Sting won the championship."

Stop supporting a socks disruptive edits or you will be blocked indefinitely.★Trekker (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Even if you are not a sock you were still being blatantly disruptive by supporting a socks version of an article and ignoring easily proven facts. At best you were revenge editing against me, so no, you will not get an apology from me.★Trekker (talk) 02:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh, of course, I forget you are the only person interested in pro wrestling on Wikipedia. 194.28.124.52 (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

How does that sentence even remotely relate to anything? Do a simple google search and you could find evidence of Hart's involvement in Starrcade 1997, it's even mentioned in the main article (which you claimed to have looked at in your edit summar, haha). Your points are beyond weak.★Trekker (talk) 03:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

He didn't "MAIN EVENT" in Starcade 1997, which his article says, which contradicts what the Starcade 97 article writes. At no point did I say he wasn't in Starcade 97 (as per my edit diffs, ha ha). Shame your WP:Own issues are diluting the credibility here. 194.28.124.52 (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Good thing his article clearly noted that he didn't main event it but just was involved in it as a special enforcer. Your complaints are inconsistent with reality.★Trekker (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

At no time was he listed as the "Enforcer" in the Main Event, he inserted himself. Maybe you should read up on what Main Eventing really is. But I should have known better than to edit an article you've obviously taken 'ownership' of, as it's your way or no way. 194.28.124.52 (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

There is no own issue, many other much more respected editors than agreed that the other stuff was some straight up bullshit. You do realize that there is more to an article that the table on the bottom and that that doens't dictate everything? Read the breadtext next time will you. Really, you should have known better than to mimic socks (now if you actually are innocent) and engage in an edit war randomly because you wanted to get back at someone.★Trekker (talk) 05:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

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).

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

---

Request reason:

No reason given for Block other than "Block evasion", but no checkuser has been actioned, even though I asked for it to show this is not a Sock IP. In fact, I ask that this IP is checked for being a Sock for whoever it is that @*Treker: is accusing me of being, and then when it comes back as negative, I expect an apology from both that user for his lack of WP:AGF and @Oshwah: for his bad block. 194.28.124.52 (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are quite obviously evading blocks. (There are also several reasons why your demand for a CheckUser is a non-starter.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2017 (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.

---