User talk:Wrestlinglover/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

List of National Wrestling Alliance championships

I almost had a stroke, at first read I thought you meant the titles listed on List of National Wrestling Alliance championships should be brought up to FL, talk about an ambitious plan. I'll help what I can, I can probably source every single pre-2000 championship from the Wrestling Title histories book, some are already listed on the individual pages so I'd start by copying those if I was you. I also have a really good book on the NWA to help source the statements on how the NWA regarded various title such as the many versions of the "World Tag Team" titles. MPJ-DK (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:FL

Please explain how an EC match or TLC match is more important to the title's history then a ladder match. In kayfabe, I'm sure it is, but outside of it... Gavyn Sykes (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why are they still listed in the the article in question? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I still fail to see how they're more important, but if that's consensus, then fine. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose so, though I don't agree with it. Meh. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey man

Hey man. I've been good. I got your message (which you sent like 2 weeks ago). I've been away for personal reasons, but now I'm back. Save Us.Y2J 10:30, July 14 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

You know, redirects exist on Wikipedia for a purpose. You don't need to go around changing every redirect, even if it is a template: the template will still operate the same way. You don't need to waste your time to try and get more edits by doing so, just letting you know. See WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN.--Truco 503 04:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, boredom makes you do things. But thats cool, I just wanted to let you know in case you didn't ;)--Truco 503 04:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know what you mean, look at what I'm doing in boredom, killer.--Truco 503 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Man you have taken all the good lists, but theres an error with the coding you have with the table. Also, you can't use CAPS for the show name such as for RAW is WAR. Damn, wasted those days working on this list then.--Truco 503 16:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I kinda had something going with the sorting in my version (which obviously isn't done) but it was working well. I don't know if you want to copy it and follow that. But sure, I'll take the lead, I just need the table to be done first.--Truco 503 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Well you said that you had problems with the sorting, and I pretty much had all the things sorting properly in my list. I mean you can use your version if you want, but I'm just saying. Well I replied to a comment that you never got back to.--Truco 503 16:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Also, make sure that the reigns that happened at WM 2000 are not counted, because WWE only recognizes one title change which is that of the final champion Hardcore Holly. In addition, you know there are over 200 reigns, you are up to that by yourself? And I will revisit the FLC in a while.--Truco 503 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)--Truco 503 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: MSN

Em, it'll be about 1pm at the earliest. That alright? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Good, sorry about it though, I have a dentist's apointment, that I have to leave for in about 10 minutes, so... I'll go online once I get back. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Abismo Negro GA

That's cool, at the rate GAs are being reviewed I didn't even expect anyone to get to it for a month or more, so you're still ahead of the timeframe ;) Just take your time, no pressure. MPJ-DK (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

RQW

It's hard to say. RQW used to be a fairly important indie promotion, garnering decent crowds and having a lot of important wrestlers at their events (Robbie Brookside, Martin Stone, Great Muta, even Kendo Nagasake I think) but something went wrong and they lost a lot of credability. Since then they've stopped doing shows of their own and oversee SAS which I have no knowledge of, WAW which is very local but seems to get regular crowds of 200ish and IPW:UK which is one of the, if not the most, professional UK indie fed. So it's a bit weird now in that it's not largely notable anymore but by virtue of the promotions it controls it's sort of notable. It's hard to gauge notability by third party sources in the UK because I don't know anywhere that covers UK wrestling on any level but I'm pretty sure The Sun have mentioned them one or two times. A coupla WWE & TNA guys wrestled for them as well: Sheamus O'Shaunessy, Drew Galloway/McIntyre, Nikita/Katie Lea, Doug Williams. Tony2Times (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it deserves to be kept but there's a few pages you could trim; I didn't delete them because SamGibbs made most of them and I figured if it kept him off the main article then that was fine. But you could definitely get rid of the entirely unsourced roster page. Also you could tinker around and see how cluttered the main article would look with the RQW belt histories on it (the tag one should probably be left off) and maybe WAW's information could be put on the main page too. IPW:UK I think deserves it's own page. Tony2Times (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Nah I doubt he's being paid by them, he's only about 12/13 but he's friends with the guy who owns RQW which is why he's a bit overzealous and unaware of how to write things. I think it was him who also re-introed all UK indie feds to say they are a "sports entertainment business dealng primarily in the professional wrestling business" because the WWE page said it, so all others must. Tony2Times (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Marking minor edits as minor

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when appropriate, for the sake of fairness in the WikiCup. Edits like moving templates, replacing templates, or fixing redirects should really be marked as minor. Thank you, iMatthew talk at 01:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware. However, that is a very cheesy way to get points in the WikiCup, and it's HIGHLY frowned upon. A few editors have complained about it, so maybe if you could just mark them as minor, it would be very helpful. iMatthew talk at 01:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. One more thing, any particular reason your userpage/talkpage have retirement boxes? (just wondering). iMatthew talk at 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess you decided not to? :-/ iMatthew talk at 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lists

Jeez Will :P I was looking towards the List of WCW World Television Champions but then I see that you started expanding it, how many lists do you have going, leave me some man!! :D I only got the hard ones left :P--Truco 503 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it looks finished to me (TV champs list), isn't it? What else is there to be done, other than the lead?--Truco 503 02:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Hm, I see. I think for those reigns it would be best to use the system that MPJ-DK used in the List of CMLL World Welterweight Champions.--Truco 503 03:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've searched as well (before I sent the previous message), I searched through the NWA's website, Solie.org, and Mid-Atlantic Gateway...nothing. There aren't any reliable refs out there for it, its just best to go with what we know.--Truco 503 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, good idea. Old title lists are very complicated. I was trying to do the USWA World Tag Team Championship, but there are no refs as to when World Class Championship Wrestling became USWA and how when WCCW went bankrupt and merged with another promotion to form the USWA, they gave them the rights to the WCWA World Tag Team Championship to create the USWA version. (confusing, eh?) But for now I'm going to do the NWA United States Tag Team Championship--Truco 503 03:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I know about that DVD, but it doesn't really say anything about the USWA, it just mainly talks about the feud between the Von Erichs and the Freebirds. It also doesn't say why and how the titles were handled from WCCW to USWA. Yeah, I can't wait for that either: Nitro (they should call ECW that). But anyways, yeah I doubt it will have anything on the TV title (WCW DVD).--Truco 503 04:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah true, and thanks, I've barely started on it, its a bit complicated. Yeah, I see that, you've basically taken over what I started :D--Truco 503 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Like I was one of the first ones to start the mass expansion of FL's for titles, but I left for awhile and during that time you and MPJ have done a great job expanding a lot of them. I don't mean this in any cocky or own-ish type of way.--Truco 503 18:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, congrats and great work on those because no one really oversees those. I wish I had the time you did, this may very well be my last year on Wikipedia, so I'm trying to do the best to fit things in.--Truco 503 18:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That's nice, when school starts I will barely be on here so trying to make use of my last moments. 2010 will be the year Truco Rests in Peace :D.--Truco 503 18:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually serious though, I won't have enough time to get on as much. I will pop here and then of course, but not as an active editor.--Truco 503 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Haha, I will make a note to myself then. This just isn't the same place I entered about 3 years ago.--Truco 503 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, it all started with the FA of SummerSlam (2003), ahh the memories.--Truco 503 18:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, change was needed. --Truco 503 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not really liking that comment...and okay, that's cool.Truco 503 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah so true. Its the US for ya.--Truco 503 01:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep. So is the list done?--Truco 503 01:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh.--Truco 503 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
That's cool, me and Blue are still working on the US Tag Titles.--Truco 503 18:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

X Division belt

I don't really like to do preemptive protections. I'll keep an eye on the article, though, and as soon as the IPs start, I'll protect it. I don't think it should be a problem, though, as long as that Hippo person doesn't come around. Generally, a few IP additions and reverts isn't enough to label the article "unstable". Giant content wars like what was happening last time are. Nikki♥311 23:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew talk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV

Delivered by JCbot (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Thanks

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my userpage. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

South Park GAR

My bad...I didn't know you were waiting for some kind of response before beginning. It's a big project, so surely I wouldn't be the only one available to address the problems. I've been busy lately but my summer classes are winding down, so I think I can give a review the proper attention within the next week. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

X-Division articles

I would appreciate it if you could hold off on nominating these articles for deletion. I will be out of town for the next couple of days, but I think I've found sufficient sources to demonstrate notability (possibly as a single merged article). Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Booker's Regin

Hi, it's me again. You said me that we make oficial the Eric Young's regin as TNA X Division Champion. My dude is We must maken the same with the Booker T's regin as TNA WHC. Is very similar, Sharmell was the referee and made the pinfall. I think that are other cases where a wrestler proclaimed himself referee, as Shane McMahon in WM 23. Hi --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:WWE Hardcore Championship list of champions

Well, in the NWA United States Tag Team Championship (New Jersey version), there was a reign or vacancy that did not have a date and I used the system MPJ came up with to come up with the days in between. If there is no date, then there just is no date; its not our faults research does not have it available. If possible, ask MPJ if his book has the title history for it and see if there is a date for it.--Truco 503 01:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You still want me to write the lead?--Truco 503 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, cool. When you're officially done, drop a line on my talkpage and I'll work on it in my sandbox.--Truco 503 03:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Well for one, I see that the table has an error in formatting, fix that first. Next, I don't really think that should be a problem. Its only going to be like 2 or 3 refs overall, and I've seen lists that are way longer that have flied at FLC, trust me.--Truco 503 19:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh okay. Well, it shouldn't be a problem, trust me. There is a current FLC which is way longer than our list. Nothing regarding length has come up, except one of my comments but its not problem as I can see. --Truco 503 22:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
I see why its so huge. The overuse of {{center}} is causing the increase in kb. Templates overall increase the kb of any page. I figured out a way to do this without having to use the template at all, see the coding i used in the new tables for this title list.--Truco 503 22:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, templates are huge when it comes to size. If I would have used your format, the list I'm working on would probably have been near that size as well.--Truco 503 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay cool. I started on it.--Truco 503 02:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay.--Truco 503 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, we should be done by then.--Truco 503 17:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright, I'm done the lead and added an image. How does it look? --Truco 503 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you give me a background on why Foley was awarded the title in '03?--Truco 503 02:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, done. You just may need to cite the sources for that info to verify it if its not already in the list.--Truco 503 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh okay, you might need to cite it with the cite video/episode template if you can't find anything for the '03 one.--Truco 503 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Search the internet archives or WrestleView archives.--Truco 503 01:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The only problem I see is that in a reign you say that you don't know what month it ended, so you mark it ending the 1st of February, I think you should use the system we have been using lately to have the range of days it could have ended like between 48 and 78 days. I also think you should use a different ref system because its confusing to have the specific refs with numbers and the footnotes also having notes.--Truco 503 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Then I think you should change it to that, but you should do it because you know how you formatted the table, I really don't and I don't wanna screw it up.--Truco 503 01:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, I did the changes. Theres a problem with the combined reigns, however. Why do you rank the same ones with the same number but instead of using the next number in line you jump to a whole different #? Like there are two wrestlers who rank at #8; the next wrestlers ranks at #10 instead of #9, why?--Truco 503 02:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I see your point. But I think thats also wrong in its own way. Example: In the lead, if you were to state who had the second highest combined reign, and then the user goes to that section and sees Rank -> 3 = ?? In the WCW US Tag Titles list, I used something similar but I think it works better. The way you're thinking about this situation is if you were just counting each entry 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc.--Truco 503 03:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Well, I'm not really. I wouldn't be up at 3.10 am if I was having a good day. It's going slowly. I'm not in the mood for writing at the moment. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't wanna talk about it. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 02:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrestling book

it was published in 2000 and has up to December 1999 in it. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Yup, covers it up until Bossman wins it In October 1999. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Before you ask - February 1999 is listed, it's on page 26-27 of the book. MPJ-DK (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
      • No, just the month, MPJ-DK (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The chapter is called "United States: 19th century & widely defended titles - NWA, WWF, AWA, IWA, ECW, NWA".  MPJ-DK  (No Drama Wrestling) Talk  10:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Unified Tag Team Titles

What do you think we should do about the tag titles? WWE.com lists Edge/Jericho and Jericho/Big Show as separate reigns (Edge/Jericho as ending tonight and Jericho/Big Show beginning tonight). I don't think it counts as a different reign for Jericho, but how should we list it in the two "List of ..." pages? TJ Spyke 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Notification before nominating articles for deletion is greatly appreciated, as the goal should be to improve rather than erase content. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion was inapproprite for Osaka Pro Wrestling, as it would have been easy to establish notability if the article had been given a chance to be expanded. The titles are certainly not hopeless cases, and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. Seriously—Dick Togo, Jushin Liger, and Great Sasuke in a non-notable promotion??? GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
...but it shouldn't have been speedily deleted. It should have been improved. I'm not sure how you check for notablity, but I found discussions of the promotion within 15 seconds on reliable sites. I have no idea why you're so hellbent on deleting promotion and championship articles. You are taking away from the information available on Wikipedia and making the encyclopedia worse. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
"Cleaning up" and "Making sure everything is notable" through slash-and-burn tactics doesn't help. I'm fairly certain nobody was hired to write articles about any of these promotions, so I'm not sure why that would be relevant. And you're clearly not in favor of the expansion of articles if you're deleting them at this rate. "it may have been notable, but I was not aware of that" is precisely why speedy deletion should not be used. Speedy deletion is for when you are 100% sure that there is nothing in the article or that could be added to the article (preferably after checking Google Web, Google Books, Google News, Google News Archive, and Google Scholar). I would like nothing more than to be able to just write about topics that interest me rather than having to follow you and other deletionists around and work on expanding articles that you have felt the need to place time limits on (Remember, there is no deadline and inclusion is about potential, not what is there right now). As it is, I have used very little of my Wikipedia time lately doing anything that I enjoy. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
You know perfectly well that AfD these days is nothing more than a gang of deletionists who take the notability guideline five steps beyond what it was intended to be. Recreating the articles is even harder, as they are very likely to be speedily deleted based on their prior deletion. It is hard to assume good faith when you seem so determined not to understand my concern. I realize that I don't have to save every article, but watching articles about notable people, organizations, and championships be deleted goes against the very reason Wikipedia was founded (to be the "sum of all knowledge"). I firmly believe that, if I am to help work toward the encyclopedia's ultimate goal, it is necessary to try to clean up the mess created by deletionists. I ask you, in turn, to remember that you don't have to do your "clean up" work—again, since you clearly didn't read it last time, it is important to note that there is no deadline and inclusion is about potential, not what is there right now. The mass of AfDs, CSDs, and PRODs goes against what Wikipedia is all about, removes valuable content, monopolizes far too much of my editing time, and pushes me closer and closer to leaving Wikipedia altogether. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

WWA Template

Okay so you think that a general WWA template would be better than just a title one, that's fine - are you planning on turning it into one about WWA in general? If not, then what's the point of moving it?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Nevermind, I saw that you made changes to it already.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I replied, the only outstanding issue was the x-cup explanation which I'm on.

The championshipname parameter - I think you're overinterpreting something here, most titles on are named in English and the Japanese ones do not have the Japanese name of the title listed. So it's not an unwritten rule, the Spanish names, the ACTUAL names of the article have just not really been used that much on Wikipedia before I started adding them. So there is really no precedent for this, I'd say that the true name of the title should be listed, not just the English translation.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I never said my territory, I said I'm one of the few actually working on it, and what's the harm in listing both names? I just don't see the point.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  07:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Rollback is only to be used on blatant vandalism; inappropriate use of the tool such as this is strongly discouraged. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

"IMO" is the key word (or acronym), I'm afraid. The edits are not indisputably malicious, so they require explanatory edit summaries. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
If you click the "undo" button, you can write over the default edit summary... –Juliancolton | Talk 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

GAB 05

Move names ARE needed. It's moronic to describe a move without mentioning the name. It's akin to saying "Jeter hit the ball, causing it to go over the wall in the back of the park and scoring a point for his team" instead of "Jeter hit a home run". Even if you keep in the unnecessarily long explanations of the moves, you still need to mention the actual moves of the names. It does not help people unfamiliar to wrestling if they don't get told what the move names are. I know if I wanted to learn about something, I would want to know the correct terms and just just general descriptions (like if I wanted to learn about rugby, I would want to know what the player positions are called and not just a description of what they do). TJ Spyke 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying we can't include move descriptions, but there is no reason to not include move names (especially something like Frog Splash). As for you last statement, I think it's more unlikely that someone would be reading the article if they aren't at least familiar with wrestling. TJ Spyke 20:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I said it's unlikely that a non-wrestling fan would read the article. You having one read it doesn't count because you had them read it, it's not like they decided on their own to read the article. The move names are more important than the move descriptions, I don't see how you think they are not needed. TJ Spyke 21:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
You keep changing what I am saying. You still told them about the article and got them to read it. If you hadn't asked them to look at it (or told them you helped edit it, getting them interested in checking it out), they wouldn't have checked out the article. It's not accurate to deliberately leave move names out and makes the article look like it was written by someone who knows nothing about wrestling (like someone just turned on the TV and wrote what it looked like). As for the missile dropkick, that is not accurate as not every dropkick from the top rope is a missile dropkick. Move descriptions can stay, but can NOT take the place of move names (and just to get this out of the way now, move names should be linked. The descriptions are what should not be). TJ Spyke 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
They read the article only because of you. I didn't say you forced them to read it, but they wouldn't have read the article if you hadn't told them about it. I also didn't say move descriptions can't be used, but the actual names of these moves have to be used as well. I don't get your last point. I never said those moves were only done by 1 wrestler. You said we can describe a missile dropkick as a "dropkick from the top rope", that is not entirely accurate since as a dropkick from the top rope is not necessarily a missile dropkick. TJ Spyke 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Unlike FA, anybody can review a article nominate for GA and promote it. I have seen several wrestling articles get promoted to GA status recently that should not have been promoted. I can't believe you still don't get why it makes no sense to describe a move without actually mentioning the NAME of the move. We don't do that with people (i.e. you won't hear anybody say "the black US president" or "the guy who lead Nazi Germany in World War II"). And you actually made the description of the missile dropkick worse. My point is that you can do a dropkick from the top rope without it being a missile dropkick. TJ Spyke 01:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate reverting

It seems like you have reverted every edit to the The Great American Bash (2005) made lately. 

# (cur) (prev)  15:34, July 30, 2009 TJ Spyke (talk | contribs) (27,317 bytes) (article needs to be cleaned up. I am not saying use only jargon, but it's idiotic to describe moves while not actually mentioning their NAMES.) (rollback | undo)
# (cur) (prev) 15:31, July 30, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) (27,304 bytes) (NO they don't, they are jargon, so unless they are explained they should not be included.) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 15:08, July 30, 2009 TJ Spyke (talk | contribs) (27,317 bytes) (Move names NEED to be included in the article) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 14:10, July 30, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) m (27,305 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.225.133.74 (talk) to last version by Wrestlinglover) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:37, July 30, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,702 bytes) (I reiterate my previous statement.) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 09:58, July 30, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) m (27,305 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.225.133.74 (talk) to last version by Woohookitty) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 18:47, July 29, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,702 bytes) (The current match descriptions are extremely awkward sounding. There is no need to have the exact definition for every single pro wrestling maneuver listed in the match summaries.) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 02:18, July 25, 2009 Woohookitty (talk | contribs) m (27,305 bytes) (Disambiguate Script to Teleplay using popups) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 15:43, July 22, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) m (27,296 bytes) (Reverted edits by 72.225.133.74 (talk) to last version by Wrestlinglover) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:58, July 22, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,693 bytes) (→Main event matches) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:57, July 22, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,692 bytes) (→Main event matches) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:54, July 22, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,808 bytes) (→Preliminary matches) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:54, July 22, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,808 bytes) (→Preliminary matches) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:53, July 22, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (26,807 bytes) (→Preliminary matches) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 13:51, July 22, 2009 72.225.133.74 (talk) (27,067 bytes) (→Preliminary matches) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 16:51, July 19, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) m (27,296 bytes) (Reverted edits by 98.183.135.96 (talk) to last version by TJ Spyke) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 16:49, July 19, 2009 98.183.135.96 (talk) (27,347 bytes) (→Results) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 21:10, July 17, 2009 TJ Spyke (talk | contribs) (27,296 bytes) (Obviously you did not read my changes and reverted only based on my edit summary. I did not change the OOU stuff, I only fixed links and made correct style changes (although there IS a consensus)) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 21:06, July 17, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) (27,177 bytes) (There was never a consensus on that matter, this is about keeping the out of universe in tacted not the names) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 20:57, July 17, 2009 TJ Spyke (talk | contribs) (27,296 bytes) (Wrestlinglover, what was the point in that when even you agree that we don't need to use the real names and this seems to be a consensus at WP:PW?) (undo)
# (cur) (prev) 20:28, July 15, 2009 Wrestlinglover (talk | contribs) (27,192 bytes) (placing in the exact version that was passed the day the FAC closed) (undo)

Actually, you have reverted every edit except for one by Woohookitty. In addition to reverting every edit, you're using rollback. Rollback is only for vandalism, and not appropriate for good faith edits like all of those. If this continues, know that just because you're an established editor doesn't make you immune to blocks. Please stop reverting every good faithed edit made there, and discuss these changes before reverting. Thanks, iMatthew talk at 22:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your reasons for using rollback there aren't good ones, TBH. You can't use rollback because "I don't have other tools." Undo the edits, instead of using rollback. Better than that, discuss it first. iMatthew talk at 23:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Please cool off a bit. I'm not trying to be a pain, but the use of rollback was inappropriate. If you thought that was vandalism, let it be known now that those type of edits should be regarded as good faithed. Those edits were obviously not against any policies, though... iMatthew talk at 23:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, then my only advice is "don't revert vandalism at all when you're tired and busy." :) iMatthew talk at 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In appriciation for the GA review and in recognition that I am sometimes a bit dificult to work with

 MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For being a great contributor and a good sport. Durova288 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

IWGP article

You can definitely feel free to work on the article. I would love to see it back to FL status, but I've got 9 other articles that I'd like to start creating and/or expanding. I don't think I actually did any editing to it before; it just fit the criteria at the time, so I nominated it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, please don't feel obligated to criticize me in AfD discussions. If you have a comment you would like to direct toward me, you know where to find my talk page. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

DX

No, feel free to go crazy. I was planning to work on something else at the same time as Sopp and James, so I'll just switch my full attention to that. It doesn't bother me in the slightest. Of course, if you need any help, just holler and I'll see what I can do. Btw, I noticed you mentioned Tyson in regards to the DX GT. If you read back through the conversation me 'n 'Blue had, we both agreed that he wasn't a member, just briefly associated, so he wouldn't need to be included. Similar to Jilluian Hall for our MNM topic. Besides that, he's actually not listed on the DX page as a member, so that's one down for you. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 19:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, I'd prefer to work on my other project. It's more than one article, so... As to what it is, wait and see. :) ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 06:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I never said I was working on the Brood at the moment, and as a matter of fact I'm not. Please don't assume that you know what I am working on. I haven't shared all of my GT plans with you. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Again with the assumptions. Myself and 'Blue will be working on AOTF at a later date; that is not my current project. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Give it up already, I dislike guessing games. They simply annoy me. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well feel free to leave loads more annoying guesses on my talk page. As I said before, you will have to wait and see. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 15:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

Bolding

Could you point me to where it says bolding in tables shouldn't be used? I checked the MOS and it says bolding in articles is OK as long as it is not used too much (which means it would be OK to use bolding for the current champion in the "List of ..." title articles since it is only bolding the current champion. TJ Spyke 15:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't say it's against Wikipedia rules if you can't actually point to a guideline or policy that says it's not allowed. I can point you to where it specifically says bolding IS allowed, so I suggest you ask whoever told you it's not allowed for proof. I also suggest that you stop un-bolding title reigns if you don't have something to contradict the Manual of Style (which does allow for bolding in articles). Comment's in FL nominations are sometimes just the opinion of the reviewer and not based on actual guidelines and policies. Guidelines and policies trump the personal opinion of FL reviewers. If guidelines and policies say one thing and the reviewer says something else, we go with guidelines and policies. TJ Spyke 21:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

CMLL CHampions

Okay I know you're entitled to your opinion but how the heck is that "cruft" and your list is not cruft? Because you include some previously recognized championships?  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  03:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

WWF Light Heavyweight title

I see you've been applying the WWF Light Heavyweight title template to articles, unfortunately it contains a mistake, it links "Rambo" to Luc Porier and while he did play a character called Rambo he worked as Rambo in Europe in the 1990s not in Mexico in the 1980s, the Rambo that won the title is this guy.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

  • it's also missing Sangre Chicana, El Signo, Aero Flash from the list.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay that's just wrong to leave them out because they don't have articles, that makes it next to useless when it's not all champions but "selected" champions listed.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I thought the point was also to actually reflect the history of the championship, the total history not just part of it. And it's not like nav boxes can't have redlinks in them, it's seem plenty of places.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I can see you've got your mind made up, I'm not going to bother anymore with the fact that the navigation box is incomplete and misleading. MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  11:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Whining and bitching?

Alright, you've honestly crossed the line. There's a huge different between trying to improve some articles, and whining and bitching about them. It's enough of you being the only editor over there causing problems. I'm sick of it, their sick of it, how are you not sick of it!? You just make no sense in almost everything you say. Can you explain how I'm whining and bitching? All I can see if myself trying to improve some articles that could use work. iMatthew talk at 01:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know "how you feel" from a few weeks ago. Being accused of whining and bitching is different than suggesting monstrous changes to the project and all articles isn't needed. iMatthew talk at 01:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
You must be joking, or on drugs. One or the other. You insult me, then ask me to come back and help? No, I've wasted my time. iMatthew talk at 01:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

RE:Hardcore Champions

I think using the Solie.org ref was not a good thing because Solie themselves don't have that much credit themselves for compilations of the records, and they credit other people for compiling the information but they aren't that credible. I think its best if you remove that ref.--Truco 503 03:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I think it will be okay for that since if you research the days listed on WWE.com, they will come back as days for their television programs or PPV's. We'll see what the reviewers say.--Truco 503 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I would note it at the FLC that its just used as a way to show the shows/events, and with research, those events come back as true. But I think you should note in the article that its only used for that as well, because Solie.org by themselves is not reliable. Can I ask you favor? While I'm gone can you look over the Hardcore and my NWA Mid-Atlantic FLC?--Truco 503 03:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks.--Truco 503 23:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again for looking over that FLC of mines, and sorry I wasn't able to help out that much with the Hardcore Title but I think you knew more about the list than I did. Looking at it, I don't think the first time its gonna come around, ya know?--Truco 503 23:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
About the WCW Champs list, I don't think I can do the lead. I will try my best to do it by Sunday, but if I can't I'll let you know. I'll try my best, however. --Truco 503 03:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Attacks

I think you knew you were going to get warned or even blocked for this, so, the question is, why say it? We all get angry in discussions, especially when it seems someone else just refuses to give up or get the point, but shouting abuse at a long-term contributor is never the way to solve these things. I think some people would be willing to block you for comments like that, but, personally, I don't think it is necessary. Take a quick break if needed but, please, when you return to the discussion, approach the issue a little more calmly. I have removed your comment, and trust you to not reinstate it, and to behave a little more maturely from here on. J Milburn (talk) 11:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you accept you crossed the line, and glad you hope to work this whole thing out now. Naturally, it would be in everyone's best interests if this could just calmly pass over. Thanks for your explannatory note. J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship

Left a few responses back at the FLC. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your help on the NWA Mid-Atlantic Heavyweight Championship article! I really appreciate it, and I'm glad the issues were able to be worked out during my time off and able to be promoted. It wouldn't have without you, thanks! Truco 503 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Awesome! Same here :)--Truco 503 02:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Cool. That will probable be my last list for a long time, after next week, I will have little to no time on here anymore.--Truco 503 02:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

South Park

Thanks for the thorough review! I'm glad you brought up the refs, as some were indeed unreliable. I still went ahead and left some comments (after the pass) about the rest that you brought up, and am still unsure myself about marinij.com and c21media.net. Your input (since it was your review) would be greatly appreciated (though you're certainly not obligated), and I'll bring it to the attention of the South Park Wikiproject. Thanks again! - SoSaysChappy (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IWGP event names

The names were already listed when I found the article and nominated it. I'm fairly sure they were from the Strong Style Spirit website, which, unfortunately, has been down for a few months. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

IWGP Tag ref

I've been kinda busy lately so that's why I haven't gotten around to this sooner. It's the usual stuff and "Japan & Korea: New Japan IWGP Tag Team Title" page 373  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  06:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You know me, I always have an opinion on everything.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  08:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I've only given it a quick look but it generally looks okay, although the repeated note for Team 3D / British Invasion seems a bit redundant to me. I'm sorry I'm not more help I'm just a bit busy for a total review.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  11:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah I see, well that wasn't very clear from your total lack of mentioning ;) I'll put it this way, I've had FLs pass with Spanish language references without it even being an issue.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  12:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:

Yes. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 13:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of that. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not in a mood. I just don't see why you felt the need to tell me something I was already well aware of; I'm planning on nominating it as a GT, so it's a pretty good bet that I know how the articles involved have been rated and therefore it's a pretty good bet that telling me is completely unnecessary. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how telling me things I already know is being a good friend, but whatever. I'm trying to cut down on-wiki conversation at the moment, anyway. I don't have a lot of time to spend on-wiki anymore, and when I'm online, I prefer to be able to work on articles, not have random conversations that aren't really related to wikipedia, like so many of our conversations in the past. Don't take it personally. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I've already said I'm fine, as in I don't need my spirits lifted, and again, don't take it personally. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

<--Well, I thank you for the thought, but again, I don't feel the need for a conversation not directly related to wikipedia nwhen I don't have the time for it, and besides that, it's not necessary. Have a nice day. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 10:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Real Championship Wrestling of Baltimore, Maryland

Can you please explain to me how "They stole my name for a promotion too" is grounds for deletion? Especially, when the company owns hold a regional trademark on the name (Bes2224 (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)).

Well I believe in the future, when making comments for deletion you should, always keep biases and bias comments to your self (Bes2224 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)).

I do read closely, but inserting personal opinion taints decisions (Bes2224 (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)).

So whats going on man?

Little birdy told me you and iMatt have been having problems as well as you getting yourself two blocks for edit warring. As your friend I feel I should tell you that the edit warring isnt worth the trouble. Just put it too votes it easier that way. I have no blocks on my record and am very proud of that. That will be very good points towards rfas in the future. If there is anything I can help with let me know.  :) Cheers, JakeDHS07 07:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 11:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk at 16:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of IWGP Tag Team Championship

Hello! Your submission of IWGP Tag Team Championship at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! orangefreak33 04:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

TNA

It is sad that TNA is not popular enough to get more editors to work on articles related to it. Anyways, I assume you weren't planning on putting an article in the main space for a few weeks. Right now the only information is that the title will be given to the winners of a tournament. We don't know what the title will look like, when the champions will be crowned, who is actually in the tournament (other than the first one match that was announced for next weeks Impact). TJ Spyke 22:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

On this weeks Impact, David Penzer announcer her as "Traci Brooks". She is also Traci Brooks on TNA's website [1]. TJ Spyke 01:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wrestlinglover/Archive_12&oldid=1136124500"