User talk:GuffasBorgz7/Archives

WWE Armageddon
I don't know if I will revert it yet, but it HAS to be sourced. Don't claim you don't know how since I said how to do so in my edit summary. Also, the practice here is to wait for the US airing.  TJ   Spyke   23:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Royal Rumble (2008)
Why do you keep changing the title of the reference to the wrong name? The "Title" is supposed to be what the title of th source is. If you check the source, it cleary says the title is "Preview: The Royal Rumble match". Also, we don't list nicknames in PPV's (one of the few exceptions being when we list the WWE Hall of Fame inductees at WrestleMania), so it should just be "Jim Duggan".  TJ   Spyke   04:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. GuffasBorgz7 15:41, 3 January 2008 (EDST)
 * Your edits come in conflict with our project's policy of "Week-by-Week" commentary. Unless notable (decided by consensus) it cannot be added to the article. Hope that clarifies.-- bullet proof  3:16 04:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Understood. GuffasBorgz7 15:58, 4 January 2008 (EDST)
 * You're doing this on purpose, aren't you? You and I both know that the match was announced on SmackDown. I did provide a source though, see Template:Cite episode.  TJ   Spyke   03:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean I added the source for the WHC, you didn't.  TJ   Spyke   03:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. So I just copied the other ref (which does work) and replaced the info.  TJ   Spyke   03:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular edit summary you are referring to? Words in grey means appear automatically when you are editing a specific section of the page (rather than just clicking the "Edit this page" tab).  TJ   Spyke   05:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Royal Rumble (2003) and Royal Rumble (2004). Both of those we list the event that the qualification match took place at. Is there a particular reason not to do the same for 2008?  TJ   Spyke   08:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If WWE acknowledges that Snitsky is in the RR match, then we can add that it was at a house show.  TJ   Spyke   21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some exceptions, like when iN DEMAND showed the poster for Royal Rumble (the first site with it) and advertised a Elimination Chamber match for NWO.  TJ   Spyke    —Preceding comment was added at 00:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed at WP:PW and no real consensus made. I suppose if several seperate websites (i.e. no "as reported on so-and-so site" since that would just be reporting what some other site said) report what happens at a house show, I guess that could be acceptable. It's a judgment call, whether we list him or not doesn't matter to me.  TJ   Spyke   00:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please stop. Your edits are becoming very disruptive. We at WP:PW are trying to expand PPV articles, so your edits do not help. Please see this page for more information. D.M.N. (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Power 25 pages
The Power 25 pages were redirected as non-notable list cruft per consensus at WP:PW. Please do not recreate them as the will be either redirected again or nominated for deletion. Thank you. -- bullet proof  3:16 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not the case. The issue here is that it was agreed by the project to redirect or delete the pages. If you want to try and change the consensus I suggest you discuss this at WP:PW's talk page. -- bullet proof  3:16 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No Way Out 2008
Spoiler reports are NOT reliable sources since, among other reasons, there is no way to verify if the info is correct (even the sites that post them can't verify, they have to trust that the people sending them in are telling the truth). Wait until matches are announced on a reliable source (most likely when SmackDown airs, or on wwe.com).  TJ   Spyke   03:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Why call it that? EC is just a type of match. If they were having two ladder matches, we wouldn't say "RAW ladder match" and "SmackDown ladder match".  TJ   Spyke   03:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It was decided long ago that we would distinguish brand matches (hence why the 2002 PPVs don't feature "Raw match" or "SmackDown match", or why we don't list WWF wrestlers and WCW/ECW wrestlers for the Invasion PPV). If you want to see if the consensus has changed at WP:PW you can, but the current consensus is that identifying matches by brand is something we don't do.  TJ   Spyke   03:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, just so you know, changing the date listed in the template doesn't do anything. You can change the date that appears in it, but only an admin can change the actual amount of time the protection lasts. Februay 18 was picked because vandalism by IPs/new users on PPV articles last up to the event and heavily during the event itself, the vandalism usually stops after the event, that's why we pick the day after the PPV when requesting protection for a PPV article.  TJ   Spyke   07:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. This has been discussed at WT:PW the name of the WWE brand is called RAW, the name of the WWE TV Show is 'Raw''. ''  T r U C o 9 31 1 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes but Raw, SmackDown!, and ECW are shows of WWE. And Raw is the name of the show not the brand, but either way is correct as some other user corrected me. Cheers.-- T r U C o 9 31 1 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Mate"? You from Australia? Yeah but the name of the show is Raw, but WWE trademarks/promotes it as RAW, it's in the article WWE Raw. T r U C o 9 31 1 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read Gavyn's comment, that would be unencyclopedic, just because it's not on WWE.com doesnt mean anything because it has aired already. And because other English countries use the English Wikipedia, it is official. But to prevent an Edit war I will leave it alone. T r U C o 9 31 1 23:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Australian TV is a reliable source
Anyone claiming otherwise is simply incorrect and going against every debate to do with spoilers. Wikipedia both allows and activey encourages spoilers, but once a show has aired in one part of the world it is not longer a spoiler and is in the public domain itself as a reliable source.

This comment from Tony Sidaway pretty much summarises the facts:


 * Once episodes of a TV program are broadcast on a public network, the events depicted are in the public domain. To embargo comment on those episodes until they are broadcast in one particular country is out of the question. Utterly unacceptable. Moreover, should a wrestling bout take place in public arenas, clubs and the like before members of the public, there can be no embargo on any reliable reportage of the bout, in any form. As long as the source is reliable (for instance, ESPN, CNN or BBC reports the result of the bout) no embargo can apply on Wikipedia, and no decision made here can override that fact.

If you would to see more on when the Australian airing, among other spoiler discussions, resulted in agreement that they are both reliable and must be included see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 35. Anyone claiming a "consensus" on spoilers not being allowed and the Australian airing being unreliable is both incorrect in policy and the result of the actual debate possibly attempting to commit argumentum ad nauseum. –– Lid(Talk) 01:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Signature
User:3bulletproof16 designed my current sig, try asking him.  TJ   Spyke   23:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to design one for you. Just give me some ideas on what you want.-- bullet proof  3:16 06:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I couldn't get every other letter "black/blue" like you wanted because it would have been too long to fit in the "Signature" box on your Preferences page. However, I did take the color scheme you gave me and incorporated it into this ... -G uf fa s  B or gz   7- ("Guffas" links to your user page and "Borgz7" links to this talk page) It's just a "Prototype" or if you like it the way it is, go right ahead and use it. If you want me to change something, please tell me. --  bullet proof  3:16 05:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Easy, just copy this...


 * -G uf fa s  B or gz   7-


 * Then go to "my preferences" on the top menu (next to "my watchlist") and find the field that says "Signature:" and paste it there. Finally, make sure the "Raw signature" box is checked and then click "save". Cheers!-- bullet proof  3:16 07:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, sorry. See Signatures. You didn't want your sig in bold? You forgot to copy the three apostrophes on each end of the sig formula.-- bullet proof  3:16 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, no prob. Cheers!-- bullet proof  3:16 07:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

NWO
Actually, support seems about even (not a majority supporting redundant info).  TJ   Spyke   05:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Two links in the same section of the same article to another article is considered redundant. This situation would be like having links to Ric Flair every time his name appears in the Evolution article. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.  T r U C o 9 31 1 03:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Also please note that even if you do not violate the 3RR rule, you can still be blocked for excessive edit warring. The Wikipedia rule about links is that at most they should be linked one time under each header or subheader. Please read Manual of Style (links) if you would like to know more about the appropriate why to use wikilinks. Thanks. Nikki  311  05:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below.
 * Where are you getting the idea that linking twice in a PPV results section is any different from anywhere else? Gavyn Sykes (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mobile phone
Use the "move this page" process to change the name of a page. Cutting and pasting isn't the way to do it. You lose the edit history that way, and that's a copyright violation. Corvus cornix talk  06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Match labeling
The fact that it is a ladder match is one reason. The womens match is just a normal tag team match with no special stipulations or anything like that, it's like calling a normal match a "Grudge match". Also, the MITB is not a normal ladder match. Not only does it have 6 or 8 people (which is unusual), but it also has a much bigger prize for winning. Basically, if it's just a normal match with no different rules or reward, then there is no reason for it to be named.  TJ   Spyke   15:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * They already are named: Elimination Chamber match.  TJ   Spyke   19:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a discussion you might be interested in: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:WrestleMania XXIV MiTB
Nope, the match preview states that Morrison gained the final spot (and that's the one with Jeff Hardy removed) and it was written yesterday, so yea its only 7.-- T r U C o  - X  20:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spoilers
You need to stop reverting due to spoilers. The reverts should happen, but not to prevent spoilers. If a reliable source can be provided (like WWE.com or WON) then it's against wikipedia policy to remove the spoilers (See WP:SPOILER). However, most if not all of the time a spoiler is posted, there is no reliabe source. Thus, I would encourage you to revert per "no source" or "not a reliable source" rather than "no spoilers." Cheers, Gavyn Sykes (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright then, thanks. :) Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter
True, but it does the same with Triple H versus Orton article. WWE.com lists their matches in a weird way, IMO. Listing it as: "WWE Champion Tripe H vs. Randy Orton (Steel Cage match)"; as compared to our listing of: "Steel Cage match for the WWE Championship: Triple H (c) vs. Randy Orton". They, to me, make it very unclear as to whether or not the match is for the title. I'll read the preview article again, and if I cannot find any mention of the match being for the title, I will remove it, again. – L A  X  10:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Religion
I know you're entitled to your opinion but I must tell you, just because I know I should, that there is a god. I can give you scientific evidence that God is real. I just need to tell you that He is real. You don't have to belong to a religion or believe in creationism. There are some that believe in God and believe Evolution aswell. Even though I don't know you I don't want you to go your whole life and when you die find out you were wrong. Because if I'm right then I'm set. If I'm wrong then it makes no difference. I won't know that I was wrong just like you won't know that you were right. The argument of if Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are right then no one will know it was. If God is real then there is going to be alot of pain ahead for you. If you want to hear what I have to say then write back.--WillC (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay there are simple arguments to show God exist. I hope this will change your mind. Maybe you and me will meet one day. Okay the first one.


 * 1. Okay scientists say that the Big Bang created time. Okay before the Big Bang there was no time. You can't have change without time. Now there has been said that before The Big Bang in nothingness there was a dot that held all matter that is in the Universe today. It began to spin faster and faster. Okay after it got to a amazing speed it had so much pressure it exploded and that was the Big Bang. There is no way this could of happened. With No time, there can be no change. This couldn't of happened at all. Now lets say that I'm mistaken and this story, that a educated Atheists told me was true but they are just not sure of how big it was, isn't true. Then you have another question. You can't create something from Nothing. Nothing can only create nothing. How did this explosion create all the matter and where did all the energy in the world come from. Energy is eternal. Can't be created or destroyed. How did this energy be conducted from this bang. Yes it was a a massive explosion but energy is conducted from matter. With such a small dot how did all these Galaxies form with such massive amounts of energy.
 * 2. Life cannot come from non-living things. Life can't come from a rock. Life can come from living things but not from non-living.


 * Defending how God exist
 * How can God exist without Time? God can exist without time because He is unlimited. In the Bible (yes you probably don't Believe the Bible but we take it as truth just go with me here) He says He is omnipotent. Part of the definition is Unlimited. Held without laws. God can survivor without time. He can make change without time.
 * Where did God come from? God is energy. He is eternal. He can't be created or destroyed.
 * How did He create everything if Matter can't be created from nothing? Again He is Unlimited. He isn't held by laws. God is unlimited Energy. He can make planets and give this Universe a massive amount of energy because He is energy. God can give life to non-living things because He is living also because He isn't held by the laws of life. He created the laws. If you have any questions ask. I hope I'll be able to answer them. I'm only 16.--WillC (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes It is just a theory and it is accepted by many. I don't know how God created everything so I don't argue that is the way the Universe began. I argue that it is impossible without a omnipotent being. I take that as the Christian God. Because Creationism is probably the oldest belief out there. How could this one belief survive this long and the others die out. Believing in something you can't see when others believed that the Sun was God and it died out. Also believing in something you can't see isn't that insane. You can't see Black Holes unless they are eating something to say. Eating a Planet or something around the lines of that. We (you and me) believe that it is there when we haven't seen one eat something. Also there are simple answers to why We don't see him or he doesn't show himself. The thing about the Bible. It is the oldest book today. Historians use it and others aswell. People say it is corrupted by man when there is no reason for it be. No reason for anyone to write the book. To make money. Do you know how hard it was to make copies of those things. No reason for anyone to lie. The Bible talks about ancient tribes dieing out. Then we find evidence that these tribes died the same way it said in the bible. Dude you need to hear it all isn't imaginary. People seem to think Creationism has no proof. When all you have to do is look all around you and there is your proof. Use your eyes. Look at pictures of galaxies and stars. Or Nebula's. There is your proof of intelligent design. Creationism is a religion. Evolution is Science (even though it is faith based). You have to have faith in Creationism. Simple as that. Also I choose to believe in Creationism and God. I go to church and all but I'm the only one in my family that studies Creationism and Evolution. I am interested in this subject. Okay sorry about the rant. I just start writing and forget what I was talking about. Anyway Scientists say that there was no time before the big bang. Science says it. Watch the History Channel's The Universe. I get most of my information from that program. Also that program is actuate. Also about the questions. Yes there is questions. There is going to be more questions. Even about stuff we didn't think we would get questions about. Just like that certain star that recently was found to have a orbit that it wasn't suppose to have. See not everything in science is actuate. There are questions to intelligent design. There are questions to Evolution. Some can be answered and some can't. Life can't come from Non-living things. From what I've heard it is called Abiogenesis. You have never seen life come from something not living. Most of time when you see maggots come out of food. They actually were laid there. They didn't just evolve. That is just a example. Okay also the perfect conditions. It just so happened that out of all 8 planets and the 2 dwarf planets and the hundreds of moons in our solar system that this planet developed the right conditions that life came from non-living (rocks) material and after 3.5 Billion years we evolved into what we are today. In that massive amount of time we didn't die out or another wondering planet like before didn't kill us all. Also the Theory of a Meteor hitting the Earth that killed all the dinosaurs would have killed everything. There would be no way we could have evolved then. The reason I assume that God is real is because a omnipotent energy would have to be real. I take that as God. You have to have faith that the god I believe is the real one. All I did was the pros and cons list. Which one I should believe in? If I believe in this God then If I'm right then I get to go Heaven (just like other religions). If I believe in this one and another is real then I go to hell but I get to leave there. Believe in this one and find out this one is right one then I never leave. I can't prove it was God but I can prove there is something out there that we can't explain for. That science was wrong about. Even some of our greatest minds believed in God. Even Charles Darwin, Sir Isaac Newton, and Galileo Galilei all believed in God. Also yes Darwin started to question if God was real after his daughter died but he still said he felt God was real. He became Agnostic after that. Also more proof of God. The Bible yes, speaks of first hand encounters with him. Why believe it. Why believe that another Planet came the size of Mars 4.5 Billion years ago and crashed into Earth. How can you prove that? With simulators? That is your idea of how it happened, or that it happened. There is parts of Science that are based on faith not fact. We think the Andromeda Galaxy is moving at 252 km a second towards us. Explain this to me that this Galaxy is around 2.5 Billion light Years away that we have this amazing number. When you can't measure with light. (Light years is the distance light travels in a year. That is 6 Trillion miles.) This galaxy is 2.5 Billion x 6 Trillion miles away. That equals out to 15,000,000,000,000 Miles away. And we are making a estimate of 252 km. Km is under a mile. 5/8 of a mile. Explain to me how we are getting this when we don't have the equipment to make that estimate. We can't measure with Light but we say that it is 2.5 Billion Light-years away. Also here is something that you can see with your own 2 eyes. Can you tell me that over 4.54 Billion years that this got to what it is today. It screams design. Also if you have any questions ask. I'm ready for the normal ones and new ones. And my Name is William--WillC (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to continue our discussion then just send me a E-Mail.--WillC (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter message
It has recently been brought to the attention of WP:PW that the newsletter is being to delivered to several users who have not been actively editing for several months. As a result, their talk pages have become increasingly large, unmanageable and slow to load due to a lack of archiving. In response, this message is being sent to all editors listed in Category:WikiProject Professional wrestling participants to say that anyone who does not list their name at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active before May 16 will be automatically listed at WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, and will no longer receive the newsletter or any notification of it. If you are added to WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Nospam, please feel free to remove your name if you desire. If you wish to continue receiving the newsletter as normal, please add your name to WikiProject Professional wrestling/Newsletter/Active. If you simply wish to receive notification of a new issue, but not have the full newsletter delivered to your talk page, please add your name to the notification only list. If you have any queries please contact me at my talk page or leave a message at WT:PW. Thank you for your co-operation. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 00:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)