User talk:Mega Z090

Your edit here was inappropriate. There was no consensus and the discussion was not closed. There is no harm in bringing a relisting to something that had only one !vote at the time. The was only closed after you reverted my relist and then added your !vote to this article. As such you edit has been reverted, the item has been relisted for additional discussion and consensus. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mega Z090. Please don't blank comments by other users or whole discussions. If you disagree with what someone has done, say relisting a discussion, talk to them about it on their talk page, don't just remove their comments – that sort of thing will inevitably lead which get us nowhere. Likewise, don't blank full requested move (RM) discussions. If you disagree with the discussion being reopened (fair enough), discuss it with someone – the editor in question, the closing admin, one of the noticeboards, all are more productive than simply blanking. Additionally, old RM discussions are always kept for posterity – if someone else is thinking about moving the article they can see it has already been discussed before and the reasoning that people had. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions about this or the RM process as a whole. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

You do realize you just violated the 3RR rule right? Crash Underride 06:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Uh Uh I'm on three now. Go to the talk page if you don't want to be reported for edit warring. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I was on the talk page already. Crash Underride 06:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The talk page of the article where the issue is, not the other talk page. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you're at four. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not. the first of the previous three was more than 24 hours ago. Check. I'm on three now in 24 hours. If I edit again within five hours then I'll be at four. Mega Z090 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not that simple, sir. If it were, people would game the system. Can't have that. But I'm not about to call you on it. Just counting. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It is that simple. That's why there is a back up rule called Edit Warring to cover for it. And you and Crash were edit warring as a team. But I'm not about to call you on it. Just watching. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the talk page of NXT Championship and you can discuss about adding or removing the Combined reigns section. You can avoid an edit war by discussing about your reason why you removed the section. Just looking out for you.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 00:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your recent edit to List of professional wrestling promotions because WWE's name is WWE. The do legal business as World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. that's it. Nothing else. The companies name is WWE. It has been since 2011. CrashUnderride 16:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That rule applies to the WWE page only. On that list you have to have the full name as all the others do without exception. Mega Z090 (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Please, stop. The subjet was discussed many times in the project. Sine 2011, the (full) name of the promotion is WWE. If you have som problem, talk in the project discussion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. On the WWE page it starts "World Wrestling Entertainment" and the infobox is also noted as "World Wrestling Entertainment". The full name exists and is valid and should for consistency be on the list of promotions by that name. Mega Z090 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop before this get taken to WP:AN/I. The company's legal name is World Wrestling Entertainment, inc. but they're doing business as simply WWE. Very few articles need to use the full legal name. Before changing the name in 2002 the full company name was World Wrestling Federation Entertainment, Inc., this is rarely used in articles detailing that era, just legal matters. It's the same deal in this case.LM2000 (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The other companies are not doing business as their respective acronyms, WWE is, that needs to be reflected. I know it's unusual but it's actually not inconsistent when we place it as such in a list of companies and the names they're doing business as.LM2000 (talk) 01:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It is, and what you think logos are of those other companies I mentioned? That's doing business under the initials. Mega Z090 (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

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.LM2000 (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Amy Action and Steve Rackman aren't notable, even for the reasons you're quoting. Stop reverting me! 101.182.144.48 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

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

I am in violation of nothing! They aren't notable! Prove that they are beyond your stupid little tidbits!! 101.182.144.48 (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

They aren't tidbits. They are important points. And you have now violated 3RR. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No they aren't and I'm reverting your vandalism which is protected behaviour! 101.182.144.48 (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You're banned now I see for edit warring. Serves you right, vandal. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop attempting an edit war or I shall report you for failure to trying to come to a consensus.--WillC 02:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're the one refusing to come to a consensus. Mega Z090 (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)