User talk:TJ Spyke/Archive 29

"Fixing" Redirects
Hi, I used to go around making changes that delinked redirects because I thought it was tider. Then an administrator dropped by and shared WP:NOTBROKEN with me. I hadn't been aware of it before, but seeing as it's an editing guideline I've tried to avoid doing it very much since then unless the redirect points to an incorrect place (and then I usually fix the redirect, actually...). Anyway it's not policy and is just a guideline, however you might want to reconsider making these kinds of edits in the future for the reasons given at WP:NOTBROKEN. Your call. Good luck, -Thibbs (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I did
I did inform you if you bothered to look, User talk:TJ Spyke. Afro Talkie Talk - Afkatk 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I think this really should be carried out on the ANI Discussion, I do think it was correct of me to bring it to the Notice Board after you blatantly took multiple shots at my intelligence, and I don't think for 1 second that taking shots at the other persons intelligence dismal or not is a part of a friendly discussion, and considering you have had multiple instances in the past since your last blocking and have been on numerous final warnings I think I had every justification to bring it to ANI. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I don't know if you were just being stubborn, or slow, or something else." seems a pretty clear shot at my intelligence there dude. Afro  ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 02:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

what did Puder break then, he broke a rule
what did Puder break then, he broke a rule, he did a real submission on Angle, when he should not have? Gregorynovella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

if the match was real, why did the ref do a count despite the fact that Puder's shoulders bridged up, if the match was real, then Angle should have not won, yet, because he didn't pin Puder...Gregorynovella (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC).

StevenMario
I've opened up a report on StevenMario's current problematic behavior - it's at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents if you want to weigh in... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Final Battle 2009
The event itself was actually called Final Battle 2009, I don't know why you decided to move it. Afro ( Not a Talk Page ) - Afkatk 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Final Battle
I disagree, especially with regard to Payne, who is constantly introduced to the ring as Alex "Sugarfoot" Payne, and I would consider it part of his ring name. In this case, I feel it is best to go with the source, and the source says "Andy “Right Leg” Ridge beat Alex “Sugarfoot” Payne", which is why I originally wrote it as that, and have changed it back. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 02:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Mayhew
Lauren debuted at last week's tapings. She is signed to the Smackdown brand. As her manager I can confirm this information (but you can source lupoentertainment.com; my website) as well as Lauren's MySpace at myspace.com/laurenmayhew which lists her appearance dates. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicklopiccolo (talk • contribs)
 * OK.  TJ   Spyke   18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Big Gold Belt
I think the Big Gold Belt image should be used on the World_Heavyweight_Championship_(WWE) since the belt is the unbranded Big Gold Belt.Gregorynovella (talk)
 * Just signing so bot will archive.  TJ   Spyke   19:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The 2010 WikiCup begins tomorrow!
Welcome to the biggest WikiCup Wikipedia has yet seen! Round one will take place over two months, and finish on February 26. There is only one pool, and the top 64 will progress. The competition will be tough, as more than half of the current competitors will not make it to round 2. Details about scoring have been finalized and are explained at WikiCup/Scoring. Please make sure you're familiar with the scoring rules, because any submissions made that violate these rules will be removed. Like always, the judges can be reached through the WikiCup talk pages, on their talk page, or over IRC with any issues concerning anything tied to the Cup. We will keep in contact with you via weekly newsletters; if you do not want to receive them, please remove yourself from the list here. Conversely, if a non-WikiCup participant wishes to receive the newsletters, they may add themselves to that list. Well, enough talk- get writing! Your submission's page is located here. Details on how to submit your content is located here, so be sure to check that out! Once content has been recognized, it can be added to your submissions page, from which our bot will update the main score table. Remember that only articles worked on and nominated during the competition are eligible for points. Have fun, and good luck! Garden, iMatthew, J Milburn, and The ed17 19:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Slammy Awards
I responded on my talk page, but basically we are waiting for it to be orphaned (holding cell). You can help if you want. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

SmackDown vs. Raw 2011
Sorry.--Curtis23 (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re
They are fan-edited, and as such, are fan sites.


 * 1) "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting." - How can something that anyone can edit necessarily have factually accurate material or verifiable research?
 * 2) "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)" - How can something editable by fans and created by non-authorities not fall under this rule's umbrella? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ELNO proves this wrong; the nature of the Wiki requires that they violate WP:ELNO. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to look further, "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked." (emphasis mine) -- Neil N   talk to me  23:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's to me, I dispute how much of an exception this is. I strongly disagree with linking to a forum that provides fan theories; it'd be like using a closed forum as an EL. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't think Wikis should be linked too, bring that up on the WP:EL talkpage. It's the same with any other guideline and policy; you don't ignore it because you disagree, you try and get it changed (if enough others agree).  TJ   Spyke   23:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And just curious - would you allow this to be linked anywhere on Wikipedia? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Super Mario Wiki already is used as a link on Wikipedia. In fact, it is a External link at Super Mario 64 (a Featured Article). StrategyWiki is another Wiki used on many articles (including SM64, and was already in the article when it got promoted to FA in 2008).  TJ   Spyke   00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That the guideline accepts a universally awful Wiki as an appropriate EL shows that the guideline is broken, or that it's being misapplied. I'll take your failure to answer my question as "no, I would not add it". - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Super Mario Wiki isn't a bad one (I could find dozens, maybe hundreds, of bad Wikipedia articles). I thought my answer seemed obvious, yes I would use that Wiki and add it if I was editing a Mario related article. The only thing I don't like about Super Mario Wiki is that they tend to use the European names for articles.  TJ   Spyke   00:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So, you're comparing Mario Wiki to awful Wikipedia articles? I'm not exactly pleased that an EL with six references, hence proving to be almost 100% unreferenced, with a ton of original research, would be added as a reliable EL. Bowser tells me that the Mario Wiki is full of inexperienced people who would mislead or confuse readers from Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess
Hi, can you please explain why you think the links don't fall under WP:ELNO? You'll have a better chance of getting them in if you use the talk page instead of edit summaries. -- Neil N   talk to me  21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Per Talk:The_Legend_of_Zelda:_Twilight_Princess do you want to re-insert the link? -- Neil N   talk to me  00:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

RE
No, there has been countless discussions over format. The table that is used was agreed upon at WP:PW over a year ago and has evolved since then as well. The format used now is the same one MPJ, Truco, and myself have all had lists pass to FL status with. Hell, List of WCW World Television Champions, the most recent FL, follows the same format as I used for List of ECW Champions and will use for the other WWE FLs. All the lists I have done follow that very format in list form just with a few minor changes down the line. There is only a few minor differences in format between mine, MJP's, or Truco's. I use extra sort templates to tie up loose ends in case. Not really needed and can be taken out if there is genuinely problem with them however, they add a extra bit of sorting which is good. I know you are only trying to do what is best for the articles at times. But the article had bad coding, incorrect data, one or two unreliable refs, etc. That list was promoted on June 30, 2007, over two years ago. A few things it failed were content forking, the quick reference bypass of overlink, unreliable sources, false content, poor layout, etc. Without an update, that thing in all likeliness would of failed a review. The FL criteria has went through two discussions that had it redone since then. I am not the only one who has told you this. The format used today, is the one agreed upon as FL worthy. Most of the problems that have resulted in edit wars with you is apart of the criteria. I take each nomination as a new discussion on format. Those are lengthy discussions between several. Some have new changes, some don't. Most of the times, the only problems are in the prose. The table is agreed as FL worthy by many it seems. My current nomination IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship hasn't even had any problems other than difficulty with sorting vacant reigns, which as yet to be mastered anyway. This is the new format. The matches we've had problems with are even in there, because the discussion at WT:PW. Not like this is all my view. This format has been discussed to death.-- Will C  18:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Check the WT:PW archives. This was while you were gone for an extended period of time. Difficult to edit is not a guideline or a reason to hold a list back TJ, if you can't figure out how everything works, then don't edit it at all. This isn't my format this is the format used in many list today and by others. The format that began to be used before I ever started working on lists. It was in existence before I started working on List of TNA X Division Champions. The same format agreed upon and FL required. The table is agreed upon. The sort templates is an FL requirement. The vacancy sorting is a small problem which I even said has not be mastered, but with work that can no longer be a problem. One small crack, is no reason to tear down the whole building. The format you speak of is the format from a year ago. Times have changed. Just because the old list may have one shining light surround by many broken ones, is not a reason to not keep consistency with the newer lists. A small sorting problem is simply the poorest excuse you can give to not change. Yes, he mentioned it and there was a discussion to figure the problem out. The possible fix was shown, yet I am confused on how to use that template. I never said they shouldn't be avoided entirely, I was saying the article is a quick reference. This site is not just for people who are from the United States. It is for anyone who speaks English from around the world. Not everyone knows these abbreviations. I was making it universal for everyone, rather than keeping it US centric. TJ, if a city name happens to be misspelled, it is not because I did it, it was because I copy and pasted it from the version that was already there and it was beforehand. I never wrote out the cities. Now, please try to not insult my intelligence and remain civil. You may disagree with the format TJ, but it has been agreed upon. Several lists nominations, which are discussions, have agreed upon them. Different discussions at WT:PW have resulted in the format you see today minus a few extra sort templates. If you continue to edit war over them in the future, I will be forced to take your constant violation of a consensus to ANI.-- Will C  19:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TJ here is all the discussions which caused today's format to be used. This discussion, one which you were involved in, added the days held column to the table. If you notice, before the sort templates were ever added, the vacant reign sorting problem was also around and you pointed it out. If you look here, you'll see the reason the new table format was added was because of the sortability feature. Here is the discussion where the new table format was introduced. Here is where the format was brought up again and here is where it was agreed upon, including the tag team name being under the wrestler names. Easy editing is not an excuse against several consensus and for making articles the best they can be, seeing from the several other FLs we've got. Each discussion shows what benefits there are. I have also showed you why today's format must me used. It has to do with guidelines and usefulness. New editors barely can make links. Does that mean we shouldn't link anything because it is hard for them? The sorting function and the table format is all FL requirement and a consensus. I have showed you why you are wrong TJ. There has been a consensus. You disagree with it, that is your problem. Everything being linked is because the lists are quick references and for presentation. Writing state names out is for presentation and being the list is quick reference for readers looking for information fast, some from Australia will not know what KY stands for. We should not be US centric with quick references. Naming conventions also says that abbreviations should not be used on a regular basis and that is good to write out the names. No matter how much you want it, this is not the US Pedia, this is the English pedia, and there are more people who speak English. Now quit trying to own articles. Because it seems, the format used today is fine with several editors seeing as you are the only one with a problem. There is your proof.-- Will C  23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My rebuttal is above. Yes, I use alot of sortable templates, but they exist to help so that isn't a problem. Truco, myself, and even MPJ use those templates. I just sort each line rather than the first 4. I never said my exact code format has to be used. However, to keep consistency with the recent lists, those articles have to be updated to the recent changes. The article is a quick reference for the last time. That is an exception to the overlink rule. It is perfectly fine because it is wasn't, then it would've failed the FL criteria due to a violation of the MoS overlink rule. Everyone can edit the article. If they don't understand, that isn't anyone's problem but the editor. Because you disagree with the way a table sorts isn't the formats problem. That is a problem with the main code. The extra templates get the article to sort in a neater way. Normally the table would sort Hulk Hogan by Hulk, while the extra templates makes it sort by Hogan. Standard? The only one in the entire project who sorts by abbreviation is you. I don't call that standard, I call that you wanting your way. The reason to write the state out is simple. It is to keep everything universal, not US centric. I don't care if it is brung up or not. Countless FLs have been gained with this format and other variations. It is clearly the new standard.-- Will C  01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Console history
I won't revert it again, it just seemed like you missed the numbers somehow. I don't even know where you got 34 million...thing is just, the 29 million source also has 14 million listed for North America in the same source. That isn't as verifiable, since we have a newspaper source, the NY Times, saying the Genesis sold 20 Million in the US alone, and it's dated just after the Genesis 3 came out, so those sales hadn't even come back yet to tally into that. I did count in the Nomad to hit 39.70 million, so I could understand going down to 38.70 million. All sources are cited.-- Pimp Uigi  22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean. Hadn't seen this 34 million picture yet. I just thought the blog was reliable, since the sources were the NY Times, Press Releases, and sources Wikipedia already used - therefore already found reliable. The Brazilian article claims 35 million sold world wide, and it's a number that makes sense with these sources, when you don't count in Tec Toy, Nomad, or Majesco sales. Most people didn't, and they are listed separately in the Brazilian article. In fact, when you take the 1995 sources from the referenced blog, and add them up, you get 25.08 million, which is what GameSpot's number is here http://www.gamespot.com/news/6178666.html I'd say that's a pretty big step towards verifiability. The picture of references notes that it doesn't include Tec Toy, Majesco, or Nomad sales either. The 34.70 million claim, rounded up, would cross reference with the Brazilian article's claim "about 35 million." Another step towards verifiability, based not on the blog source, the blog source is just meant to lead to the group of reliably published sources, ie. NY Times, Press Release, and Brazilian Article. I was unsure if I should have included the group of sources for people to add up manually, or source a place where they were already previously added up.-- Pimp Uigi  03:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. IslandNet is the source that started this whole thing since it grouped the NA - 14 Million and Worldwide - 29 million numbers together, then goes on to contradict itself with the NA - 19 million number two pages later. Completely destroyed the 29 million number's reliability there. (though 29 million plus five million is 34 million, once again grouping itself up to "about 35 million" not counting Nomad, Tec Toy, and Majesco)-- Pimp Uigi  04:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hey man. Sign into Windows Live.  Save   Us.  Y2J  8:58, August 9 2009 (UTC)
 * Check your e-mail, I sent you a message.  Save   Us.  Y2J  11:26, August 9 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I thought that by adding "PPV" to the article, so people can understand what the abbriviation is. I was just trying to make the articles better, but in this case, I made them worse.  Save   Us.  Y2J  10:26, September 5 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. If it's not really needed, then why should I keep doing it? I'm not gonna waste my time anymore on doing that.  Save   Us.  Y2J  10:42, September 5 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the deal with the whole Nigel McGuinness's real name thing? It's getting annoying.  Save   Us.  Y2J  10:46, September 5 2009 (UTC)


 * K, that's alot of chaos over a name. You could of just told me to go to Wikipedia:PW, and I could of just read the converstaion there. You didn't have to all that typing man. But thanks for telling me of what happened.  Save   Us.  Y2J  10:58, September 5 2009 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at a covnverstaion on Breaking Point. You said that SmackDown airs about 3PM, you were a little off. It airs at 3:30PM in Australia on Friday. Nice guess (since you don't live in Australia). Thought I'd just mention that.  Save   Us.  Y2J  11:05, September 5 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's actually a good time for it to air. I get home from school around 3:25, so I'm home just in time for Raw and SmackDown. Raw airs on Wednesdays at 3:30PM.  Save   Us.  Y2J  11:13, September 5 2009 (UTC)
 * Replying so it will archive.  TJ   Spyke   00:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WM23
Hey. I know I've been involved in the discussion, but it's frustrating just going around and around and around like has been happening. It's drama like this that made me step away from the project for a while. I'm not going to be commenting on it anymore until it's done. Since I'm involved, please let me know if this escalates to any sort of DRV process.  HAZardousMATT toxic 02:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Colour" → "color" move requests
At the request of several other editors, I've consolidated all the "colour" →. "Color" move requests together. In the process, I reverted all of your "support" comments, as the discussion is now all in one place. If you still want to join in, it's at Template talk:American politics/party colours/Democratic. Thanks, RossPatterson (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

List of WWE Raw guest hosts
Why is the last edit you did, removing all of the numbers under the headding "#", not revelant to the article? I can just as well say that the numbers in the box for the Royal Rumble match for all of the Royal Rumble pages are not revelant and delete those numbers. Gibsonj338 (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? Your comparison is completely whack. WWE and everyone else puts a HUGE focus on the Royal Rumble entry numbers and the elimination numbers. What relevance does the number have for Raw Guest Hosts?  TJ   Spyke   01:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WWE The Music - A New Day
Basically it's all coming through WWE's two Twitter accounts WWE and WWEUniverse. I would have cited them but it looks like I can't use them as sources per WP:TWITTER so I'm hopefully waiting for a WWE.com source later today. --  Θaks  ter   18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if it helps, WWE.com writer Corey Clayton has confirmed the Twitter accounts as legit in his WWE Universe blog post. --  Θaks  ter   19:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WWE Hall Of Fame 2010
i need a second opinion. i read a story on lordsofpain.net that maay have confirmed 1 member of the wwe hall of fame class of 2010: stu hart. here is the link: http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe/5939.html  Can we put that into the article, or wait and see how it plays out?--JereMerr 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)--JereMerr 14:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremerr (talk • contribs)

WrestleMania 23
Do you fancy starting an RFC for this? GaryColemanFan is clearly not going to drop the stick and he shows no sign of budging, I am also disinclined to budge since as far as I can tell this made-up attendance figure has never been covered by any reliable source so cannot be allowed any kind of parity with the official figures, and there seems to be some kind of forum meme pushing Metzler's wild guess as evidence of WWF falsifying the attendance figures. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Straight Edge Society
You should probably just jump the gun and nominate the page for afd now. You'll most likely have to do it eventually, and at least that way any future recreations can easily be speedily deleted. -- Scorpion 0422  21:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Another tricky title
Thank you for making your points at Talk:Brüno. I was wondering, do you feel the same way about WΔZ? Or should it be at "wΔz"? I came across it not long ago and was trying to decide what could be done with it. Seems like a strange and unreachable name. Erik (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahem
See, I didn't ask you to use your sole opinion as consensus. I asked you to explain where the consensus exists that the ESRB ratings should be counted in light of the several discussions that resulted in a consensus otherwise. Give me one good reason why we're allowed to speculate as to what a rating means from the ESRB. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And might I remind you that editing an article to reflect the consensus achieved on three talk pages [one of those talk pages requiring TWO discussions to get it removed, in spite of the first discussion being successful], is as far from vandalism as you can get. Maybe you should step back and stop trying to weasel your POV into articles; you already knew that the ESRB was not accepted as a reliable source by the project but went on your own and ignored all of the opposition. FYI, I'll be taking further action to remove future release lists based on ratings for all other VC lists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except that you participated in that silly little project discussion on the reliable sources talk page.
 * How has it not been established? It was not included as a reliable source on the matter of release dates specifically because the ESRB web site says exactly zero times that these ratings are indicative of a future release. You saying that the company intends to release a game solely because it's been rated by the ESRB is far from important; does it say this on the web site? Can you show that 100% of all VC games that have been rated by the ESRB have not been removed?
 * To repeat what's been said, we are not a news site. We provide facts about notable things, not up-to-the-second information.
 * Most of IGN's links are general "no information" links, several of them being merely summaries of their original games that likely indicate that they just saw the ESRB ratings and went from there. There are no news stories or references to establish where the information came from, and even if it was from Nintendo directly, they would mention that. Even the most reliable source mentions where it receives its information. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Cite: publisher parameter
Hi, thanks for your note about the "publisher" and "work" Cite parameters. I have a long list of articles linking to The Sun which I'm processing, and many of them use various Cite templates. While the documentation for Cite news makes it clear that The Sun should not be listed as the "publisher", for other Cite templates it's not so obvious. It appears to me that The Sun should, indeed, be the "publisher" for items such as Cite web and Cite video. Do you agree, or do you have another interpretation? Thanks, M AN d ARAX  •  XAЯA b ИA M  09:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship/archive1
Hi, can you revisit this FLC when you get the chance? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note that if you don't reply to Will's responses, I may have to discount your oppose as not actionable. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The sorting issue has been addressed; please check back ASAP. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: January 2010
I hope I am doing this write. I'd like to talk to you about the WWE Home Video page. What is your e-mail address? User_talk:Whoiswith32


 * Mo reply. Just doing so that the section will eventually be archived (sections with no timestamps don't get archived).  TJ   Spyke   20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cookie


Tyw7 has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 02:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

WON Awards
Having amended a page with the latest WON awards bit without noticing an edit by you beforehand, would you rather wait for that info to be released on their site publicly without premiums? For the convenience of citing, in any case. Papacha (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doable. That info'll be made public on the WON or a recognized news site sometime in the near future; until then that's sensible. Papacha (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

An entry in my log
Hello TJ Spyke,

as an helpful hand who fixed one of my incomplete anti-vandalism recovery, I listed you in my success and failure log.

Heracles31 (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Twilight Princess writer credits
Thank you for your message, but I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a few years. There are no clear-cut conventions on citations in infoboxes. The only passage that mentions guidelines that could apply are to be found in the Manual of Style for lead sections which says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited." As creator credits are usually very easy to verify and thus unlikely to be challenged, I think that they do not need to be cited, unless they are not mentioned in the most obvious sources (e.g., the game's ending staff credits or the manual). Especially since citing a source for every single person mentioned in an infobox is more cumbersome than helpful. If you think this topic needs further discussion, bring it to attention at the talk page for the Manual of Style. In any case, please don't revert information so easily verifiable as legit but instead add a citation needed template. Just removing it causes more work to Wikipedia contributors than need be. Thank you. Prime Blue (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BAD ATTITUDE
When you replied to me on the Womens Championship reign lengths you sounded quite disrescpectful and rude. I'm sure your not usauly like this just you gave of quite an rude image which i hope was a one off!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.107.55.214 (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Huggle, Sweden
Good day, my good man. I am well aware of what you said on Articles for Deletion/Huggle, Sweden is not true. The Wiki doesn't even HAVE guidlines for populated places. Regards, Belugaboy535136  contribs 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 January newsletter
We are half way through round one of the WikiCup. We've had some shakeups regarding late entries, flag changes and early dropouts, but the competition is now established- there will be no more flag changes or new competitors. Congratulations to, our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than and   (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to - his artcle Jewel Box (St. Louis, Missouri) was the first content to score points in the competition.

Around half of competitors are yet to score. Please remember to submit content soon after it is promoted, so that the judges are able to review entries. 64 of the 149 current competitors will advance to round 2- if you currently have no points, do not worry, as over half of the current top 64 have under 50 points. Everyone needs to get their entries in now to guarantee their places in round 2! If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, by email or on IRC. Good luck! J Milburn, Garden, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

reply
At the time that I reverted the IP I didn't know for sure but after i checked I still left it reverted for the fact that it's notable.-- Steam   Iron  10:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WWE NXT
I created it as a redirect. Jeff Silvers chose to create the article. It would be simpler if it were redirected again.-- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry you got that message, Twinkle automatically notifies the article created when it is prodded. I quickly removed the prod and just removed the unsourced (then a IP made it a redirect).  TJ   Spyke   05:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * With OverlordQ userfying the original I'm thinking that maybe getting the page deleted again with a maintainence tag and then asking him to protect the page might do some good. Once the NXT article is warranted OverlordQ can then de-userfy the original page. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds OK.  TJ   Spyke   02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How is it vandalism when it was actually correct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRatedRKOLegendKiller (talk • contribs) 15:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Attendance Royal Rumble
Source: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2009/1265300865.php?style=dark 201.40.157.248 (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)