Talk:Vic Grimes

Trying to work this out

Bullet, what is your position, exactly? Please link to specific Wikipedia policies. My position is that I am "self-reverting" (allowed under WP:3RR) and that by reverting my self-edit, a case can be made that you are vandalizing this article. I also take great offense to your negative comments about my intent in editing Wikipedia. Please read WP:ASG for more info on the "Assume good faith" policy which you are clearly in violation of.JB196 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FROM OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA POLICIES: WP:VANDALISM AND WP:OWN

Please DO NOT deliberately attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

:If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Sir, its your word against mine. You have no more right to "Revert" than I do. The WP:3RR policy cleary backs up my self-revert contention, while you must prove why exactly I am "deliberately attempting to violate the integrity of Wikipedia," which in and of itself is violating Wikipedia policy because that is far from true. I am going to bring this issue to the Arbitration Committee because you have not shown any willingness to work out this issue beyond quoting a vague page and continually violating the WP:3RR rule.JB196 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree to a mediation hearing, bullet?JB196 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you intend to prove with this since users form the WP:PW including myself have pointed you towards the policies time and time again your numerous violations here on wikipedia. I suggest that you take this issue with the WP:PW talk page and discuss your actions with them. Hopefully then you will see that this is NOT my word against yours here, this is Wikipeida policy that is being enforced. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My edit is protected under WP:3RR. Your revert is not protected, and as such you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. Whether you are an admin, a novice, or somewhere in between here on Wikipedia, you are violating Wikipedia policy as outlined under WP:AGF. My edits do not fall under WP:3RR because the FACT is (and you cannot deny this) is that I have not more than three times in a day reverted this article to a version that has already existed. Please STOP violating Wikipedia's guidelines and accept the version of the article that has been UNIVERSALLY accepted. Nobody had contested Paulley's 13:40 5/9/06 version until I changed it (And I didn't contest it, I just added to it). You are violating both popular opinion on this article and you are violating Wikipedia policy. As such, you are the one vandalizing the article, sir. I don't care about my past edits. My past edits on Wikipedia (which have all been in good faith whether you want to believe that or not) have no role in this discussion...actually, I take that back...their role here is that they back up the fact that your accusation that I am intentionally disrupting the integrity of Wikipedia is proposterous and in violation of WP:AGF. It is not my responsibility to bring it to the WP:Pro Wrestling audience; it is your's. And furthermore, I feel that the Mediation Committee would be better off discussing this matter.

"this is Wikipeida policy that is being enforced" - This is also my contention, so it IS my word against yours.

Again, for the umpteenth time, my edit is protected under WP:3RR and you have not offered any response otherwise.JB196 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discuss this with other more experienced editors here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. I apparently can't get through to you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It would not be a violation of WP:AGF to say that - with all due respect, you are like talking to a brick wall. You echo back everything someone else says without any substantiation. That's not the way Wikipedia works. At the very least, you are in violation of WP:3RR and WP:AGF. At the worst, you are intentionally vandalizing Wikipedia with the intent of ruining its integrity.JB196 03:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion has been brought up on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion on one page. Discuss on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling. Thank you. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

JB you realise your not reverting your additions you are infact reverting everyone who has edited the page in the last couuple of months... infact after you first added a bio section i rewrote and improved it thus infact you are deleting my work for no just reason; which is vandalism --- Paulley

Re: Lid

Application of official Wikipedia citation policy takes precedent over analysis of user motives (questionable or not) in applying Wikipedia citation policy. If something needs to be cited, it needs to be cited, regardless of who it is cited by. You have no right WHATSOEVER to remove citation needed templates for obscure information and antecdotes that are not cited and doing so constitutes vandalism.JB196 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

A good gesture on your part, as the one who assembled the information originally and thus presumably one who knows where it came from, would be to provide some of the references yourself. IMHO this would go a ways towards showing that this is not jut more edit warring on your part. - TexasAndroid 15:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I have to write something here to show JB that I've read this page. Hi! My edits are based on what various other users have stated here, on your talk page, on their respective talk pages, and on the admin's notice boards. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}
JB's also broken 3RR with his last revert just a few minutes ago. I'd report him, but frankly, I don't have the strength for it now, it's almost 1 AM and I'm going to bed. -->So sayeth Methnor^{Sayeth back}|_{Other sayethings}

I count 1 initial posting of the citations and 3 reverts. I would not consider the first a "revert", IMHO. That said, JB, you are on the edge, and if you revert the citations again, you are over 3RR and subject to blocking again. And with that said, I wish that, instead of all this reverting, someone would just make the effort to add some of the references. Especially you, JB, since you originated a lot of this here in ther first place. If you want them referenced, you should be the one who knows where you got the info from in the first place. - TexasAndroid 00:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotection

I thin k we all know why. Guy 07:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC) lol

This article is contains false and unsourced information

Vic Grimes real name is Thomas Mccullen not "Vic Grimes" which is his professional name. Most of the information in the article is completely wrong. This includes place of birth, name, date of birth and so on. Most of the article is written from the point of view of someone who seems to believe that professional wrestling is real. The vast majority of sources cited in the article lead to invalid links. I attempted to make basic changes when Mr. Mccullen mentioned his displeasure in a public forum at the false content of the article. I would strongly caution anyone looking at the article not to trust any of the contents. 184.21.142.22 (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

IP: It's easy enough to point this out, but why not make an account and fix these errors yourself? You didn't even provide any sources so we could try and fix them. Ed6767 talk! 02:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Because based on the reaction to the very first change (Vandal/BLP), its kind of obvious that this is another shadow-protected Wikipedia article and that any edit made will be rejected for some reason or another no matter what I do. I mean bad faith was instantly assumed and I didn't even have time to get the full source reference into the article before I was tagged as a vandal and quoted BLP on an article that violates BLP. I even put a short blurb pointing in the direction what the source was to be in the comment for the change. But it didn't help. Trying to do anything on this is a waste of time. The best I can do is note in the comments the false and unsourced nature of the article and move on. 184.21.142.22 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have sources, you should be at least prepared to cite them in the talk page and be more specific. I'm just some random browsing the web (a.k.a. the most likely person to do something), so I'm the sort of person who you want to persuade. Persuade me. BTF Flotsam (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)