User talk:Papacha

WON
The info has to be sourced. For now I will just mark unsourced awards with a cite tag and give it until Saturday or Sunday before removing unsourced one (unsourced info can be removed at any time).  TJ   Spyke   04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ECW
Thanks, it's alright. --  Θaks  ter   10:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Main event
Either that or just list what ended up being the main event (the announced main event is not always the actual main event, this happens all the time for TV episodes).  TJ   Spyke   21:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CM Punk
I checked now the official title hystory and i see you're right. Sorry :) See you, AndreaFox (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I'm not owning the article, I just don't feel like that was much of a story so much as a PPV to get out of the way. Punk and Miz are like ships in the night and ADR has kinda disappeared out of sight. You're right that the Ziggler stuff is mainly about Laurianatis, but the feud with JL seems to be a main focal point of Raw right now, for the past few months and maybe for a while longer. I would hope that the stuff about Ziggler is really only there in relation to how it effects Punk and JL's relationship. Tony2Times (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Flickr photos
hey Papacha, thanks for adding the flickr photos of the recent SD house show. I'm planning on uploading some from that set as well, but I don't want to clash with your uploads, so which wrestlers are you planning on adding pics that you haven't already? Starship.paint (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh hey! Yeah, right in the middle of that, too. Just claim a couple that I haven't done and you're welcome to them; I was editing pics and pages as I went along. Papacha (talk) 09:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm looking at pics from Chioda, Robinson, Mahal, Aksana, Hornswoggle, Hunico, Kidd. Perhaps you could help with Sheamus, Barrett, Fox...? Starship.paint (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I can cover it, no prob. Papacha (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for using my photos from the SmackDown house show in Montgomery. Didn't expect to see them up so fast! Much appreciated. Undercova_Brotha 08:58, 9 January 2012
 * The Punk bulldog picture is a great find. Nice one! Starship.paint (talk) 08:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the set, it seems like you persuaded the uploader to change the license on that photo. There are some other great photos in his set as well which I hope you can persuade him to change as well. CM Punk's GTS, Ziggler's Fameasser, Bourne's jumping back kick, Epico's German suplex and Bourne flying high. Starship.paint (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help on Extreme Rules! :D Starship.paint (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be better not to report that puppet since it was blatantly visible and targetable... Starship.paint (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, the GA is going quite well at the moment. I think it's really nearly there. Do contribute however you can, I'd really appreciate it! :) Any significant project you're working on now? Starship.paint (talk) 09:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks very much! I might be targeting to raise Money in the Bank (2011) to GA as well given how awesome it was. Recently I was also involved in a discussion regarding the multiple NXT articles, but my views appear to be outnumbered, so I've given up on that (for now..) Definitely unfortunate that you're restricted by the lack of a desktop... hope your situation improves soon. Starship.paint (talk) 09:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop everything (Turn! Turn! Turn!)
Amen! Trying to keep the fanboy army from buggering up wrestling articles makes me feel like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in. God knows what goes on in their heads. No wonder guys like Ric Flair hate smart marks! ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 22:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I've checked out Eve Torres' article. The reviewers must have been feeling very generous when they gave it GA-status... I would have said C-class max being as the article is predominantly about the last 3 years of her wrestling career with a bit of trivia thrown in for fun. Well, I've added it to my watchlist so maybe I can help cut some of the crappy edits. Re: the Bob Holly thing, the email address given certainly seems to belong to Bob's autobiographer (going by the Canoe.ca story) but I take your point on being wary of those kind of requests. I haven't heard anything about it since replying to the message but I was intending to steer any controversial requests in the direction of the BLP noticeboard. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 18:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Chris Jericho, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Umaga (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback feature
Hi there! I saw your conversation about reverting edits here and I notice that you do not have the rollback right. If you are given the rollback right, you can revert edits with one click directly from your watchlist, the recent changes page, or article history pages. You can learn more about the rollback right here, and you can request it for yourself here. It would speed things along for you greatly! --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And if you enjoy fighting vandalism, you also might be interested in looking at Huggle, which is a computer program that makes it easy to revert massive amounts of vandalism within seconds of it happening. --Andrew (User:90) (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Appreciate the info, I'll be looking into it. Thanks! Papacha (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Heel
Heel means villain in wrestling which means he or she is turned into a bad guy like character. In the movies the hero always defeats the villian But in wrestling the heel is the bad guy which means that they are booed by the crowd whenever they are turning against and even insulting the fans. Eve Torres was set to turn Heel after the storyline involving her Zack Ryder and John Cena because wwe officals considered her to turn heel. Eve became a villain on screen which means her character turned Heel. . You see Heel means Villian and Face or baby face is like a hero who plays to the crowd and enjoys their cheers. Some wrestlers who fight clean are baby face wrestlers but some wrestlers who fight dirty are villains. So Heel means that the wrestler character that's acting all bad is Villain. Here's a page of what Heel means Heel (professional wrestling) MrRattlesnake101 (talk) 05:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's all true, but that was never the issue. You and I are familar with the material. Others aren't. For their benefit step lightly when using lingo and ease the reader into knowing what you're speaking of instead of anvil-dropping phrases (for example, "job", "sell", and "shoot"). Not unlike what you've attempted here. If you can explain in such fashion to avoid using 'em entirely but link the term for further info, all the better. Jargon shouldn't be used in headings especially as you'd want to make the article accessible to the widest number of readers.


 * Still, you have my thanks though if you were trying to help in earnest with your explanation. Later.Papacha (talk) 06:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summarizes
Your edit summaries are quite rude. If you are going to do an edit summary, don't use it as a soap box. That's not what it's for. If you have an issue with someone or something, take it to the right people in a civilized manner. Thank you. Mr. C.C. Hey yo!I didn't do it! 13:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking me to task for being rude after I apologize for acting petty paints you in such an ostentatious air it's almost impressive. If you don't care for people to challenge your edits, WP:SOURCE your work or don't make submissions here. Thanks! Papacha (talk) 01:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Flickr uploads
Hey guy, some stirling work in finding those '90s wrestling pictures. We need more of those around here. Anyways, in case you didn't know there's a Flickr Bot that makes uploading a lot easier and quicker if you're doing a straight upload without any editing. Sorts out all the fiddly business with licensing which I always have trouble with. Tony2Times (talk) 08:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup, the Flickr Bot is incredibly useful. There is also DerivativeFX which can be used to upload manually cropped/retouched versions of existing Commons images, like I did with this photo for an infobox. ŞůṜīΣĻ ¹98¹ Speak 05:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Pro-wrestling
i just followed you're edit summary. you said there was an "overwhelming amount of images". so i decided to remove the images in all of the sections and left one image thus preventing the page being an eyesore. Now i don't understand, ive already did what you wanted but still you keep reverting my edits. Anyways, I'm so sorry if you don't want me to edit pro-wrestling articles. i promise, i will not edit any pro-wrestling articles anymore or any related to that stuff, since my edits are not welcomed. thanks anyways for making me realize i'm not worth it. bye! HavenHost talk) 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part I assumed good faith in your edit given your history and didn't count on rampant acts of vandalism to prove something or you playing the martyr on my talk page. If you don't care for your work to be scrutinized or second-guessed you may be better off not submitting it here. If not don't let a bad experience deter you. In any case, take care. Papacha (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Style Guide
I wouldn't go by the style guide for a variety of reasons, the main one is its not been updated in years. The majority of old editors no longer edit, who wrote the style guide and established the consensus that made its format. I've never seen the database used that much or really ever. No one's ever made the argument for it being reliable and I see nothing which shows it should be considered reliable off the bat.-- Will C  13:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Aj lee
why are you deleting the results of a whole month i used the wwe.com results as source what could be mor true than that ??? --Nakurio (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You were breaking down her weekly career expanding on events not terribly significant (if you're a fan of old-school wrestling, imagine citing everytime Randy Savage was abusive towards Miss Elizabeth or Ted DiBiase made Virgil do something humiliating), "seems" is out and out WP:NOR, what was there wasn't written upon in an encyclopedic fashion and had mistakes thoughout and you wiki-linked positively everything (Daniel Bryan shouldn't be linked everytime Daniel Bryan is used in a paragraph, for example). Plus the sources you used weren't formatted fully - try this for next time. You could honestly incorporate everything given in their relationship quite simply without any window dressing in a sentence or two. Papacha (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

ok i guess so i try it that way next time--Nakurio (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Image size explanation
The reason I put the upright tag on those two images is to resize the vertically images to about the same overall as the horizontally oriented ones. I have a custom image size and text size on my end specifically to take advantage of my monitor size & resolution for ease of reading. Hard coded image sizes (such as what's in the Championships section of the CM Punk article) frequently don't resolve the way others expect them to; besides, they're frowned on per WP:IMGSIZE. Vertical images without the "Upright" tag in many articles tend to end up pushing other images down further than they are intended to be due to my custom image size, so that's why I routinely put that tag in place. Tabercil (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This I understand, but you've resized but two for consistency leaving the majority of the pics in the article's body at 220px unaltered. Doesn't stand to reasoning considering what the attempt is to do, elsewise all the other image files should follow suit. Papacha (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I intend to do the others... it's just that those two were the easiest for me to start with. You'll note that I've redone others in the article and will continue to work on it; it's just that I'm handling some admin-related issues right now via email which is distracting me... :( Tabercil (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No prob, just misunderstood the job being half-way done; I'll let it alone should you have a particular plan in mind. Take care. Papacha (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's now done. All the images in the article should be free of hard-coded sizes. Tabercil (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

American Perfection
It may look the same because I am the one who created the page previously, and it is different because on the first page, I just copied and pasted sources without actually getting my own sources. But on this page, I got ALL new resources and added some more recent and accurent resources. It is not exactly the same as the last American Perfection page but better and more dependable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemmeband17 (talk • contribs) 07:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Still nothing established minus (and this is a dubious one) a twitter post you can corral as a faction name, one that got pounced on and cannabalized by the rumor mill. You're not inhibited from recreating a deleted article, but you've done little to solve the problem originally raised. Two months after initial deletion American Perfection's never been accredited by WWE to Swagger & Ziggler, televised, online or in print. Your sources have only ever said that they've teamed, of which you'll receive no argument whatsoever. Never once have they been announced entering the ring this way in tandem. Papacha (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Greatoneiv
Hi. I declined for now to block this editor. It wasn't obvious to me that his editing was blatant vandalism -- it looked more like a content dispute. I see you've given him warnings -- have you tried to just engage him on the merits of his edits? I'd hate to run off a new editor just because he doesn't know how we do things.

I appreciate your looking out for our articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Royal Rumble
I'm not sure if I'm posting in the right area. In any event, my recent edits are accurate:

1. The elimination time for both The Warlord and Santino Marella is 1.9 seconds. I have taken video clips of both eliminations and put them into Windows Movie Maker and done frame-by-frame advance. You are free to duplicate this for yourself, for confirmation.

2. Hulk Hogan held the record for most eliminations in a single Royal Rumble (10, 1989 Royal Rumble) until it was broken by Kane, with 11 eliminations, at the 2001 Royal Rumble. Hogan's number of 10 was matched by Stone Cold Steve Austin at the 1997 Royal Rumble, however 3 of Austin's eliminations came after he had been eliminated by Bret Hart (tossed over the top rope and onto the floor). This is a completely accurate and necessary notation for "Royal Rumble Records". It also serves as a necessary notation for his 1997 win. He illegally reentered the ring to continue wrestling. This footage is easily found on Youtube. He was technically declared the winner of the Royal Rumble but this is simply valuable information for the fans and pertinent in regards to records.

I kindly encourage you to research this information so that you may discover the accuracy of my edits.

Any other edits I made were purely for grammatical purposes. No logical reason to decline these either as they're more aesthetically pleasing for surfers of this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.181.203 (talk) 06:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Wikipedia does not publish original research. You have no citation for supporting the material, other than the pronouncement that you've measured the time personally, making it void. Source provided in the article does not match your stance.


 * 2. Not necessary at all. How does Austin being eliminated early mandate a foot for "Most Eliminations in a Single Royal Rumble"; it adds & does nothing to alter the result, it's an addendum to be noted in the actual event page, not a record bar.


 * In defense of all else, I see nothing rolled back on the main page other than the brief "Austin was elimintated" info, though a better job could've been done merging info on the individual page. I'd curb a lot of the after-the-fact records really as they get excessive; the way it's set you could be an arse and mention Ted DiBiase broke Perfect's record in 1990 only to see that beat by Rick Martel at the 1991 event, however, Ric Flair became the new ironman during Rumble '92 by lasting 59:36, though Bob Backlund would outdo him the next year by going over an hour in a feat that'd last a decade until Chris Benoit and Rey Mysterio upended him in '04 and '06, respectively. It's a tacky example and doesn't matter a heckuva lot but it's a peeve all the same.


 * Appreciate your civility but while an argument can be made for point two you can't substantiate the first on your own. Take care. Papacha (talk) 10:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cut for brevity. I've "allowed" nothing ~ I'm not Wikipedia's grand poobah, so don't confuse tilting these articles as windmills of mine here. I'll relate what was mentioned to you again for the matter at hand - you have nothing to source your claim save your own research. Telling you Wikipedia's accepted practice and why the initial cut was made is not an unprofessional action. Even when you're certain something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. Reliable sources on occasion can and do disagree within an article and are viable provided those arguments are presented objectively from a published source deemed reliable that supports the material directly. So to your or Wiki's own detriment, the site strongly espouses the use of "credentials of an officially licensed opinion maker" as a rule, yes. Thanks. Papacha (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

CM Punk
CM Punk turned heel, please explain how this is not notable, and can be regarded as jargon. All other wrestling articles note when a wrestler changes from baby face to heel in kayfabe. Regards Footballgy (talk) 15:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "All other wrestling articles note..." No they do not and neither should they. Articles should be easily accessable and understood by your average reader without using lingo as a writer's crutch; I wasn't alone in reverting your edit. Nothing's been cemented either. Per Punk's WWE.com bio -

Has the once Voice of the Voiceless become the voice of only himself? Or is he simply just looking for the proper respect that should come with being the WWE Champion?


 * His status is a nebulous one of current and to read into the situation otherwise is original research. Thanks. Papacha (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Didn't want to clog up your talk page with a new section. I noticed throughout Survivor Series they kept saying that Punk was tied for the 8th longest reign with Hulk Hogan but the List of WWE Champions says he is tenth. Is that because they aren't recognizing the Backlund wins?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info :D Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Eve Torres
WWE lists management positions as they are counted as a superstars/divas career highlights.
 * What I'd advise if you feel strongly about it is to bring the topic up before WT:PW, relay their relevance and get some conversation going over what warrants inclusion to determine consensus. It's not a super contentious suggestion, but that page and Kaitlyn (wrestler) have been hot beds for WP:WAR of late and it's a good way to address concerns and avoid trouble. Take care. Papacha (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Reception
Hi Papacha, Ive been adding some reception sections to events and I was wondering why you are removing them? I understand that I placed some of them in the wrong place to begin with (apologies, I am new to contributing to Wikipedia) but instead of moving them you simply deleted them. I added them again in the correct place and you have removed them again without reason? I have read through the style guide and complied with its recommendations so I was wondering why you are taking such actions? Please could you explain this as I would very much like to become a valued contributer but I am currently finding it frustrating due to my posts being removed for no apparent reason. Sincerely, --Dan19851985 (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there, Dan. I'm assuming you wrote these reviews, if not much of what follows still applies. No offense meant (is what someone says when they first practice to make offense) but you are not a lauded source for pay-per-view reception. Onus is partially on me for not going in-depth, but the events added are the only ones yet written, and the style guide makes it clear they should be from sources that are well-known with a reputation for their reviews. Your site is in its infancy at less than two months with an exiguous amount of followers and a WP:CONFLICT argument could be levied in using Wikipedia for promotion, regardless of intentions. Papacha (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WWE Title History
Hi. The reason why I've been correcting the WWE title history article is because for several years the official date for Buddy Rogers winning the title was always April 29, 1963. And that was according to WWE.com (at least until a year ago, for whatever reason) and Pro Wrestling Illustrated. Whoever is running WWE.com now clearly does not know what the hell they're doing, if that's where you're getting your information from. Go to their "official" WWE title history page and click on the Buddy Rogers link. You'll notice two things: 1) Look up at the tab. The caption says, "WWE.com: 19630429 - Buddy Rogers". 2) The dates for his reign length on his page are totally screwed up. April 25, 1963 - December 31, 1969???

Also, look at Mankind's first title reign on the list. Notice it says he won it on 01-04-99. This is false. That particular Raw was taped from the week before, back when WWE only had two live Raws every month. The rest were taped from the following Tuesday. So, he actually won the title on 12-29-98. Mick Foley even admitted this in past interviews, particularly from the Monday Night Wars DVD. I've noticed several other inconsistencies in this list as well as other title history lists on their site. My point being: Don't trust WWE.com as a reliable, factual reference source. Check out www.cygy.com/pages/wwe-championship-history/, www.wrestling-titles.com and prowrestling.wikia.com/wiki/WWE_Championship/Champion_history. PWI's yearly Wrestling Almanac and Book of Facts is also reliable reference material. MaverickAC (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey. Thanks for the reply. Have to be brief, sorry, computer issues. Problem lies in that unlike televised and aired later examples, this is not a defined date. The match-up, 'least for the title in Rio de Janeiro, never occurred. The second example you list reads that Rogers assumed the role of champion in January of '63 and says some cite the match with Rocca happening in March. Your last is another Wiki, which I could similarly edit to another date myself. The day is nebulous and for worse or better lies in what WWE certifies it is, which they've done on both the website and most recently their book. 'Course, my feelings may not reflect those of the community in general; you might want to seek out further views at WT:PW and get a consensus in the matter. Papacha (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ!
When I saw "407 photos", it was like Bryan winning all over again. Are you the uploader by any chance? Unfortunately, I'm pretty much done with editing for today but as you should be able to tell, I am working on WrestleMania XXX quite extensively. Dammit, I'm trying to watch NXT over here and can't concentrate now! starship.paint  "YES!" 12:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, just fell into it as I do most things. Quite the charitable bounty though. Groups well with the generous headache I got from editing PWI awards this last hour.


 * chrissakes i just wanted to add a picture WHY i DO DIS Papacha (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You lucky boy! Surely there is a picture among the 407 that fits that description. Try venting your frustrations. starship.paint   "YES!" 08:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I just saw the Axxess images today and they are terrific as well, a lot of them are lead image worthy. Miguel is just off the charts. I'll let you upload some first then I'll pick up whatever you didn't. starship.paint   "YES!" 01:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the PWI journals so I couldn't do what you're doing. I truly wonder if 2012 was a better period for WWE than it is from May 2014 until now. Hope you will watch Wrestle Kingdom 9 in three years (don't read the spoilers!) starship.paint  ~ ¡ Olé !  05:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Laura Chapman for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Laura Chapman is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Laura Chapman until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 22:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Misa &#38; Misao OVA Version.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Misa &. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION : This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Michael Scott Ryan for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Scott Ryan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Michael Scott Ryan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Paper Luigi  T • C 03:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)