User talk:Wrestlinglover/Archive 14

List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions
I'm afraid I can't find a confirmation of the hook in what I presume to be the proposed source. Can you point it out to me? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 15:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't find that information at the PWtorch site, though. Is the link given correct? Do I need to click on something once there? Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we need a statement that's a bit clearer that Deaner claimed the championship - because of the silliness, the facts in the hook require knowing the facts already to spot them. If you find a somewhat clearer source, I'll gladly make sure your hook goes in. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Any will do, so long as they're a bit clearer on the events. I'm not questioning the source's reliability, just the clarity in this particular case.

Right! It's added to the prep area, and should make its way to the mainpage in a couple days. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 209 FCs served 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Mike Quinn GA
Figured I remind you about it considering A) you haven't commented in 5 days and B) you said that you, "forget things easily". ;)-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 19:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, take your time. Figured I'd remind you just in case.-- Giants 27 ( c  |  s ) 19:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

WWE Bragging Rights logo
PPV providers, SKY TV New Zealand and Main Event Australia have this logo. Others do too but I'm not sure what they were. The WWE Universe website also has the logo. It has also been featured in magazines such as the SKYWATCH! Plus the mellon arena site. InDemand is only one provider! Also I believe the new logo because it is made up of the fonts of the Raw and SmackDown logos. This suits the theme "Bragging Rights" which the two brands will fight for in the main event. This description is also found from many PPV providers. Randy Orton also doesn't do that pose anymore. That poster is an old version. I think this logo should be on the Bragging Rights article until a new poster is released. Thanks,  WWE  Socks  00:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Favor to ask
Could you please review the 2009 ICF Canoe Sprint World Championships in WP:GAN. I know canoeing is not your thing, but I did your professional wrestling article even though it is not mine. I would greatly apprecaite it. Chris (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another user beat you to it, so disregard the previous e-mail. Chris (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. At least I know what I need to do on what I have submitted. I will probably be seeing you again in future reviews. Chris (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Don't worry about it. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 05:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, it happens to all of us. But just so know, it does seem to end up happening almost anytime you post to WT:PW in recent months. You may want to calm down before posting replies, as you do come off as an ass. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Divas Championship GT
I'm not sure what I'm going to do about this yet. I know that the List of WWE Divas Champions was separated from the WWE Divas Championship awhile back by Scorpion so that it could be a part of the Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions. So, I don't think I can merge them back together to make a Good Article out of it. Because it has been peer reviewed, is not yet eligible for FL status, and already is part of a Featured Topic, I might just be able to use it as is....but I need to check on that. Thanks for your help. Nikki ♥  311   20:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The Miz
Can I at least revert the part about The Miz challenging at NOC it is true and he kept reverting it.--Curtis23 (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q3 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  04:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Lauren Mathews
Really? Do I need to say it?  TJ   Spyke   23:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked and I have not violated 3RR on the article (I have made 2 reverts in the last 32 hours, and the one that was 32 hours ago was reverting vandalism and that doesn't count against 3RR.) I would not violate 3RR on purpose, so thanks for the heads up.  TJ   Spyke   23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the Bragging Rights, wouldn't it make sense to continue using the poster for the moment as that is the agreed format for PPV's? Besides, i'm sure in the next week or so a new poster will be added on wweshop.com and then here. The other image is also up for deletion. I won't violate 3RR on it though and I know others agree with me.  TJ   Spyke   23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Will
Hey, are you familiar with the maual of style? TJ's edits may be in conflict with it, I would ask if you can look at it, I doubt action will be taken on this ANI, but I forsee him continuing to do what he believes is right, no matter what the community believes, or wants. Let me know if you find anything. If he continues to violate, after this ANI, we will re-file. I think this failed because the notice wasn't given correctly, it basicly turned into a debate. I wont do that next time. Straight up report for policy breaking, and bending. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My subpage
thats fine they were just meant to be there just for an example for the descussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling I was getting ready to remove them but you beat me to it. Have a Nice day.--Dcheagle (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Permission for FAQ page
Well this Zack Ryder thing is getting quite out of hand. I've just noticed your restart section on the talk page and I was wondering, can I have your permission to use it for a FAQ page at the top of the talk page? Maybe people can read it before complaining. --  Θaks  ter   09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --  Θaks  ter   15:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Chris Benoit
Take notice the Wikipedia works by consensus, not by majority rule. Also, if there is a majority, it is a narrow one, and split between three views. It is unrealistic to call that a majority. Have a nice day. CraigMonroe (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, IN NO WAY is a majority opinion consensus. In fact, by definition, they are distinct. You should probably review WP:Consensus which specifically points out a majority is not a consensus before replying in the future. Also, WP:Consensus not numbers may be even more informative as it basically states the opposite of what you wrote on my talk page. Thanks. CraigMonroe (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can personally consider consensus to be anything you want as long as you are aware that is not what the Wikipedia definition is. Additionally, it is difficult to say there is consensus on the talk page when about half the people are in opposite of your view. Then again, I realize this because I actually counted the poster's responses and laughed at your argument of "consensus" when I saw the vote and the wholly irrational responses made. Even if there is a majority, it is a narrow one, and split between three views. Thus, it is unrealistic to call that a majority, maybe a plurality but not a majority. Then again, I think you understand this but instead want to hold onto your personal views and for some reason play down the fact that Chris Benoit murdered his family in violation of WP:Undue and other wikipedia rules.CraigMonroe (talk) 13:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Appology
I wanted to appologize for my rudeness. I let the confusion from the discussion get the best of me. I won't let it happen again. CraigMonroe (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is ok. We all have our bad days. CraigMonroe (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag Teams
Hello America, Britain is rather sunny on this Autumn day. I don't think James Storm should be compacted mainly because he's been in two tag teams. It's not the best situation, but where would the James Storm article redirect to? Also, he had a lengthy period in his career before TNA which might be able to be worked on at some stage by someone. I think there's more of a point to be had with The Bushwhackers, all but a brief time was spent together it seems. I'm tempted to say the same for the Road Warriors too, for even after Hawk's death Animal largely competed with Road Warrior substitutes which are still covered in the tag team article. Tony2Times (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care a huge amount, certainly not to read through all three articles on the Warriors, but just skimming the two individual pages I see lot of plagiarism, so to speak. There are some bits from either's page that are just about them solo, but in the grand scale of their 20 years together it really only seems to amount to five to ten sentences, and as I said the main article includes what happened to the team after Hawk's death, so even that divurgence is covered. Maybe one of these days I'll look at the Bushwhackers' pages to see if it's a similar situation but at the moment it's just too much text that I'm not overly interested in. I just feel like if we're enforcing this Major Brothers thing, which is completely justified, we should try and enforce the rule elsewhere which is why I consolidated Cryme Tyme together. Tony2Times (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Divas title
You're right. I really lucked out there. After it happened, the first thing I did was check to see if Jillian Hall was a GA, because I knew Melina was. At least it isn't more work! Nikki ♥  311   02:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Christian
I was hoping to get this message for sometime now. I'm glad it was today. :) Alright, let me know when you're done with your "look over" and I'll look over the article as well. Yeah, that works for me. Does that work for you? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying sooner, I'm kind of losing it. :( That's good, you've found someone, that's always good. :) I wish I was lucky like you, but I'm too busy. Um, my sections seem fine, so go ahead, do the copy-edit. I'm assuming you're talking about Christian's article, right? Alright, I can do that. I think the infobox image, which I got, should be in the infobox, makes sense. The ECW image should be in the ECW section, but that's me. Yeah, after you get done with the copy-edit of Edge, I'll move the info. and add the tag team info. into my "working space". -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. :) I hope I do find someone. Anyways, getting back to business. Damn August 25? Jeez, what have we been doing all this time? lol. Alright, I'll do a check on Edge's article and let you know when I finish. Do you want me to do a check on Christian's? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Will. I appreciate that a lot. :) I am an outgoing person. Funny, smart, I'm getting out of topic. Um, alright when I get done with a GA review, I'll do checks on both articles, and let you know when I'm done. From there, we can start work on E&C. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Man, the read-through took a whole out of me. I'm so exhausted. :( Maybe cause I had three exams today. Who knows. Okay, so I think the article is ready. I'll nominate the article shortly. Are you going to nominate Christian as well? Or are you going to wait? You know I need to thank you when you say nice things, I mean I have to. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, now I know how you feel. It was awful. :) Cool. You want to work E&C in my sandbox, where I had Edge? You are so nice, despite what people say. ;) Thank you for your kind words and I hope to be as happy as you are. :P I've re-added Christian to watchlist, to avoid any controversy. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll add the info. into my subpage. Not literally, just from what I've read, if you know what I mean. The PPV looks good. You know, for some reason I have the "urge" to work on another PPV, but I swore off I'd retire from working on them, too much work. Maybe I should un-retire from them. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Kind of, but I don't want to further bring this up. What event do you want to work on? In fact, I'm open to anything, really. Was it you and I who had plans to get Taboo/Cyber to GT? If so, we can work on that, if you want. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, sounds good. Does Bragging Rights count? 2007 would be a good one. Every PPV is GA, except for WM23 and Armageddon, IDK if you're interested. Um, WrestleMania I liked to stay away, same as SummerSlam. A whole lot of info. is needed for both. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I guess I could work on the article. Alright, sounds good. I saw the "controversy" at Turning Point. Hopefully, it won't be disruptive edits. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's to hoping. Aw, that sucks. I hope you feel better. I'll pray that you feel better. Yeah, it looks good. I'll start working on the article later in the week. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. No. Do they have plans to have him at TNA? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh! I thought he was still in contract with the WWE. Guess not. Do they have plans to have him wrestle? Also, I don't know if you saw this edit. I was going to revert it, but since you didn't, I figured that it was "alright" with you. IMO, it doesn't sit well in the lead. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because of his personal life problems. I guess you'll have to wait until he appears. I'm not so sure getting back in the ring, especially at his age, is such a good idea. But, I guess. You're still sick? Man, I hope you feel better. I'll keep praying. True, but it's your article, and you're more familiar with that title than I am, so. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been seeing the coverage, shocking admissions from Hogan. Me too, make him a manager, but don't sign him up to wrestle. Well, at least your feeling better and that's good. True, but you know more than him than I do. Well, let's leave it to the GA reviewer, if the user brings it up, we can revert it to the original setting, so no problem there. :) No, I don't think that. People do think that about me, though. Oh well. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, so many storyline angles for Hogan. :) Will you join the TNA staff? lol. That's good, you're feeling better. For a second I thought you got the Swine flu, pretty dangerous stuff, but thankfully you didn't. Yeah, basically I've been accused of "owning" HBK and Brad Pitt's articles, only two that come to mind. It's not my fault that I want the articles to have a "clean cut", I don't want them to be delisted or whatever. Also, I go with the guidelines here. Thanks Will, I appreciate that comment, a lot. ;) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you have to go to college earn some kind of degree and apply for a job at the headquarters, that's my take. That's good to know. I was feeling kinda sick on Saturday, but I feel better. Exactly, that's what I do. I remove week-by-week or non notable info. that's not important to include. But, somehow people have a problem with that, and directly start accusing me of owning the article. How silly is that? lol. Oh, you can add Wikipedia itself to the list of me "owning" things. Some user in Randy Orton's talkpage replied to my responses and told me that I "don't own Wikipedia to decide what goes on it." Outstanding. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  15:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True, you can write about wrestling, instead of writing what's the next feud. Yeah, my take as well. They believe that we are wrong and they are right, despite them not knowing the guidelines here. True dat. When will they ever learn? lol. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like it. Hell, I would want praise for my "idea" behind the feud. :) No, in instances, the guidelines are needed. Without them, what would be fall back on? I agree, but then I don't fully agree with what you say. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, get the credit, meanwhile enjoy the occurrence of it. :) Oh, okay, I get what you mean now. If it's alright with you, can I start work on Rated-RKO? I mean, might as well get it done, too, you know. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You sure? I don't want to disrupt our schedule [the plans we had]. Yeah, you know I was going to start on E&C, but I got lazy, there's too much work. Might as well finish what's more easy, you know. Um, I was thinking of just working on it from the article. It's short and there doesn't seem to be that much activity with it, so. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright. Yeah, that sucks. I've been there my friend, waiting for months 'til someone reviews my nomination[s]. Cool, then. I probably won't start work 'til tomorrow or Monday, just letting you know. I've been thinking of working on Survivor Series '08, but I'm too lazy to start. :( I got to break this habit. It's an okay song. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OMG, dude, sorry for late reply. I kinda been out of it. Don't worry, I'll start work on Rated-RKO this week, I haven't been feeling well, that's why I haven't started work on it, and I got to study for some exams. I guess after Rated-RKO, I'll start work on E&C. What do you think? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm still interested in the projects we're working on. Alright, seems fine. I was gonna respond back on Saturday, but I was a little side-tracked. Don't worry, I wasn't ignoring you. I don't think I can ignore you. :) Don't worry, I'll start work on Rated-RKO soon, I promise you that. --  ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell yeah you are. :) Though, you know I find HBK extremely handsome... sexy... yeah sexy. :P Don't worry, I'll start soon before or after Thanksgiving, I'll pick one of them and begin work. I'll leave you a note when I begin. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there's that "thing" that people see in people. You have your opinion about male and females not having that "beauty". I, on the other hand, find a couple of men very handsome and gorgeous. :) Now, with females, that's a different story. There a couple of 'em that are "good looking" while others are not. Happy late Thanksgiving to you, I hope you had a fun day. I'll get to Rated-RKO, right now I'm exhausted, Black Friday and had to go to a Baseball game, you continue doing what you're doing. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  23:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I do. And a Happy early Merry Christmas and an early New Year. ;) I studied this past weekend so I got that out of the way and will be working on R-RKO. Cool, cool. You do that, and I'll let you know when I finish with R-RKO. Thanks for being so understanding. Also, you deserve a much needed break, you work too hard, man. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks man, I appreciate that. Really? Man, I have school (I work to get my assignments done), I have a job (I work there), and Wikipedia (I work here, with my contributions). Believe me, you work, you just don't know it. ;) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we do the same type of work. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with R-RKO (about time I know), you think you got time to do a copy-edit? I'll work on the lead later or if you copy-edit the article soon, I'll work on it... soon. The article has some POVish statements, just letting you know. Um, I still want to get Tomko or Styles tag team. How 'bout you? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, when you get to the copy-edit, let me know, so I can start on the lead. Sure, I'll see if I can work on it this week. Alright, seems good. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, I was thinking of replacing half of them. Don't worry, I'll replace the WWE refs. soon. I'll try to add some sources to those statements. Well, whatever info. is available, that's what we have go by. I think the info. in the article seems to cover everything. They really didn't accomplish much. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor review archived
Since it has been well over 30 days since you requested to be reviewed, I've gone ahead and archived your request as part of my effort to cleanup Editor Review. You may view your review here. Thanks & happy editing. If you have any questions, please message me on my talk page. =D Netalarm   talk  04:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

New Format
I was just looking at the article and I think there are some good ideas in there. I still prefer, mostly, the other way but this is just as effective and putting background in production might help to make it obvious, without being annoying, that it's a work. I still think Reception should go in Aftermath as it's part of what comes after the event and shows reaction, though that could be because I have a penchant for subheaders as I think they make the contents table more readable. I'm keen on the idea of having an On-Air Employees section, though more so for big events like WrestleMania that have a variety of them. I suppose TNA always have extra people on show at the moment so it'd work for all of them. I wonder if it should go in the production though, as it's part of the presentation rather than the competition. Would a subheader for the X Division match be overkill?

Also some small subediting bits I noticed: "and the younger talent of the company, who play the heroic type (of?) characters in the". There were four overall commentators for the event. Mike Tenay and Don West served as the main announce team for the English speaking followers, while Hector Guerrero and Willie Urbina served as the Spanish announce team. There were three ring announcers for the spectacle, as the normal ring announcer, David Penzer, was used for all contests besides the main event and the Rhino fought Sheik Abdul Bashir bout. 10 year Army veteran Sean M. Autrey served as the special guest ring announcer for the Rhino and Bashir encounter while Jeremy Borash performed his usual routine similar to that of Michael Buffer for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship match

I think this could be slightly better worded as: There were four overall commentators for the event; Mike Tenay and Don West provided English commentary, while Hector Guerrero and Willie Urbina served as the Spanish announce team. There were three ring announcers for the spectacle as the normal ring announcer, David Penzer, was used for all but two contests. 10 year Army veteran Sean M. Autrey served as the special guest ring announcer for the Rhino and Bashir encounter. Jeremy Borash announced the competitors for the TNA World Heavyweight Championship match, using a style similar to professional boxing as made famous by Michael Buffer. Tony2Times (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, he needs a page. I feeeeeel it. Tony2Times (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm starting to get quite a kick out of it. I'm just laughing at the ludicrous nature of it, particularly Curtis' lack of attempt to make a page about him. I'll just keep on pointing it out until Ryder does get notability 'cause it does seem like they wanna push Mr Woo Woo Woo *sigh* Tony2Times (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah it really annoys me too, at least when he was using it as an Edgehead he was a bit of a laughable character but as a serious contender? Oy. I don't really think Christian has fallen at all, if he would have gone to Raw or SmackDown he would have become lost in the shuffle at the time whereas now he's dominant over what is admittedly the weakest show, but the show where he's allowed to have 20 minute matches which a lotta folk on PPVs don't get. And he's also being utilised to put over the young guys, without jobbing himself. Also I think it's just a matter of time before Edge returns needing to reignite the Awesomeness and take revenge on JeriShow. I know you're a TNA fan and I keep up with what's going on but I find it mostly awful viewing since the MEM came in and now with Hogan joining I think Christian left at the right time. You have to question what's going on when people can wrestle only a couple of times a week in one place for a guaranteed high wage and yet are still jumping ship, or wanting to.

I'm just thankful folk aren't vandalising H&R's page nearly as much, or deleting the redirect for a content fork. Tony2Times (talk) 00:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the MEM storyline is finished but it only ended a fortnight ago, so it's hardly ancient history. Admittedly TNA look like they're taking a step in the right direction but they always look like that they're gonna do the right thing and then cock it up. They seem to have the right idea and intent but rarely the right execution. With the MEM gone it looked like they were gonna be all about new guys and innovation but the first post-BFG Title match is AJ/Daniels/Joe for the sixth or seventh time despite the two contenders having lost their previous title matches. Angle/Wolfe looked like it was gonna be really interesting, but Kurt's neck injury was glossed over as they rushed to finish the show with Hogan whereas they coulda swapped it around, or had different clips from the press conference in between segments to make it recurring but not take top priority. And once Nash comes back from suspension, with Hogan at the helm who knows what'll happen. Like I say, it seems like they're going in the right direction but any time I've put my faith in TNA before they tend to disappoint me.


 * You're entirely right about tag teams though, that's one thing that frustrates me with WWE. However you say tag teams are good at pushing individuals and that's what it's done for Miz & Morrison which is why they were split up. They'd won both titles on offer and both gained notoriety; now both guys are second-tier champions so it makes sense to split them up. It maybe woulda been nice to see them go for a few months but WWE are sometimes victims of their own scheduling and I guess it had to happen at the draft. The Colóns on the other hand is a mystery to me and I do despair. Still, it doesn't really apply to an E&C reunion because they'd be two top carders which WWE knows how to do well as a tag team (Rock n Sock, the current DX, JeriShow). So I can only hope they do that well. Christian's not an idiot, he would have known he wasn't gonna re-enter WWE as a main eventer and may not ever properly main event and yet he was willing to give that up, and more rest time and more money in favour of mid-card WWE so you have to ask yourself what's wrong with TNA 'cause that's similar to Benoit leaving WCW in early 2000. Christian and Booker have both left guaranteed light schedules and easy money and now AJ is blowing off at management, there's trouble in the water. I hope they can weather the storm 'cause I want WWE to have competition but all these rumours about them wanting to put on a Monday night show might be a bit premature. Tony2Times (talk) 14:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should put Curtis in a box, give him a colourful hat and make him the WP:PW jester; he has boundless energy. Tony2Times (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Did You Know questions
Hello! Your submission of Turning Point (2008) 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! (Note: I always leave approvals to others.) Art LaPella (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

TP08
Yes we have discussed this before, and you still don't get it. Besides the fact that the term "standard wrestling match" is not used, there was zero reason to change it other than the fact that you wanted it that way. I can change it back for the exact same reason and you can't say squat (seriously. What are you gonna say? "I changed it for no reason and now i'm whining because someone else changed it back to the format used for almost a year"). It sound better written as "singles match", and I took the wind out of your only argument against using it. I don't get you obsession with using "standard wrestling match", but you really should stop trying to us it in the Results section.  TJ   Spyke   19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You know your argument is flawed, don't you? You keep trying to say that "it was a stub, do you think it should stay that way too?" BS. You do realize that has NOTHING to do with this. You try and claim that non-wrestling fans won't understand "singles match". Um, have you ever heard of tennis? You know, the internationally popular sport where a standard game between 2 players is called a "singles match"? Also, why shouldn't PPV articles have consistency so that non-wrestling fans won't be confused when they see one format used in almost every article, and then a handful of articles use the format you prefer?  TJ   Spyke   19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am talking to a brick wall here. First, the tennis thing was to point out the flaw in your argument that non-wrestling fans wouldn't know what a singles match is. The term "singles match" is not exclusive to wrestling, and is used to mean the same thing in other sports (one person competing against another person). You also need to stop putting words in my mouth just because I was able to prove all of your arguments wrong. There is also such a thing as consensus by default, no one objected to "Singles match" in the 11 months the article used it. In fact, you seem to be the only one who does that on any PPV article. Singles match IS out of universe, it's easy to understand, it's the default consensus used throughout Wikipedia, and you seem to be the only one to object to it. The only reason you seem to object is because you just don't like it.  TJ   Spyke   01:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Both of you just drop this, both ways are correct in their own way and Wikipedia in most places does have consitency issues anyway, so just drop it. Afro  Talkie Talk - Afkatk 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Awards
Congratulations! Hope to see you sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, here, if you haven't already!  iMatthew  talk   at 23:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/Mexican National Welterweight Championship/archive1
Are you going to review this? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment about your recent post about Zack Ryder
I posted this on that talk page, but I wanted to make sure you know this. Keep your personal commuents out of this. Talk page is for discussion of the ARTICLE and improvements to it, not your complaints about Zack Ryder's push or ECW's quality. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are using it as a forum. Posting random comments about how you feel about the subject isn't helpful to the article's talk page. So I have no reason to lighten up. You ignoring policy isn't acceptable, period. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

98.16.113.252
You should report the above mentioned user. He's done nothing but vandalize since its creation and that comment you reverted here could be see as a personal threat. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rephrasing
Why has the opening paragraph been totally re-worded? It was perfectly fine as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&oldid=318911837 so why change it? Somebody please change it back, the current wording is totally inferior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tremmy (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Graham
I have replied to your concerns.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

DYK problem
Please see T:TDYK. Ucucha 02:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup Signups Reconfirmation!
To ensure that everyone who signed up is still committed to participating in the 2010 WikiCup, it is required that you remove your name from this list! By removing your name, you are not removing yourself from the WikiCup. This is simply a way for the judges to take note of who has not yet reconfirmed their participation. If you have not removed your name from that list by December 30th, 2009 (by 23:59 (UTC)) then your name will be removed from the WikiCup.

It's worth noting the rules have changed, likely after you signed up. The changes made thus far are:
 * Mainspace and/or portal edits will not be awarded points at all.
 * Did you know? articles (which were worth 5 points last year) will now be worth 10 points.
 * Good articles (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Valued pictures will be now awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.
 * Featured lists (which were worth 30 points last year) will now be worth 40 points.
 * Featured portals (which were worth 25 points last year) will now be worth 35 points.
 * Featured articles (which were worth 50 points last year) will now be worth 100 points.
 * Featured topics (which were worth 10 points per article last year) will now be worth 15 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * Good topics (which were worth 5 points per article last year) will now be worth 10 points per any article in the topic that you were a major contributor to.
 * In the news will still be awarded points, however the amount (5 or 10 points) is still being discussed.

If you have any final concerns about the WikiCup's rules and regulations, please ask them now, before the Cup begins to avoid last minute problems. You may come to the WikiCup's talk page, or any of the judge's user talk pages. We're looking forwards to a great 2010 WikiCup! On behalf of the WikiCup judges,  iMatthew  talk   at 03:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Captions
The captions already say who is on the posters, I don't get why you want it overly detailed. You want us to assume that readers have the intelligence of 5 year olds. Take FR 09 for example, it's common sense that if you see 2 names and 2 guys, the first name will be the guy on the left. You are basically saying to readers "I think you are too stupid to assume the first name belongs to the guy on the left and the second name belongs to the guy on the right". As for captions in general, they were actually introduced to make it clear when a poster was being used and when a VHS/DVD cover was being used (it was only later that names of people on them started being added too).  TJ   Spyke   21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have, you haven't. I have never seen any captions on Wikipedia treat people like morons like you want us to do. Identify who is on the poster is fine, it's not needed or all that helpful to treat readers like little kids by having to tell them where on the poster each wrestler is (especially when there are only 2 wrestlers on the posters). I just picked some random movie articles that are FA status, and notice that none of them treat people like simpletons like you are doing on TNA articles (hell, if anything we are doing more than needed just by mentioning who is on the poster): The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Fight Club (film), Gremlins 2: The New Batch, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, Star Trek: First Contact. I have not seen any infobox images do what you are doing and I have shown that what you are doing will not help the article get GA or FA status, and it just adds un-needed bulk to the infobox and on top of that it looks ugly.   TJ   Spyke   00:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have given you many more examples, those were just a sampling. The kind of unneeded detail you want is not used on any article (at least in the thousands of different articles I have read or edited). As for your comment about people wanting to know who is on that: THEY ALREADY SAY WHO IS ON THE POSTER. Adding where they specifically are on the poster does not help at all and is not needed. You are assuming people are morons by saying (for example) that they can't look at a post that has Alex Shelley and Chris Sabin on it and figure out that the caption "Promotional poster featuring Alex Shelley and Chris Sabin" has Shelley on the left and Sabin on the right. As for other posters, people (in English) read left to right and clockwise.  TJ   Spyke   00:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With a poster like Genesis, I can see the point. I don't see the point in doing it for Final Resolution.  TJ   Spyke   22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi
Hi, since I've started checking into Wikipedia daily now, I think I ought to introduce myself, as I have seen you quite often on WT:PW. I hope we can be good friends. :)-- The Celtic Cross  (talk)  00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Delay
I have indeed noticed it. I was also wondering when you are going to review it. No worries, you take as much time as you want.(Car wreck! oh man!) Hoping to see your reviews :) --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol at the whole truck/Ford scenario. Quite a mess eh! As for article length I think The Fame Ball tour is the shorter one, but feel free to review whichever one you prefer. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 10:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. Im Legolas by the way, or better known as Avi. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 10:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for passing LoveGame for GA. Really liked your point-to-point review. "LoveGame" became my 30th GA!!! --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Still Lurking, but...
I noticed the -- well, I guess drama is the only word for it -- about Hawkins & Ryder. I also noticed this. Apparently Curtis23 decided to blank the entire talkpage without archiving. I couldn't find anything in WP:TALK that said he shouldn't do so, but I'm pretty certain there's some guideline I'm overlooking that says something about such shenanigans. Thought you might want to know.  HAZardousMATT toxic 18:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, ignore me. He did archive, he just didn't link to it. I'll take care of it.  HAZardousMATT toxic 18:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's there, just so small I missed it. Okay. I'm going away now.  HAZardousMATT toxic 19:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, figured I'd make it easy on you.  HAZardousMATT toxic 15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been lurking. Some of my job responsibilities changed and I'm busy at home quite often, so I don't get to do any of the article building I'd like. Plus while I have more downtime at work between duties, my new desk leaves privacy to be desired. I'm still trying to get some things out of my sandbox. Oh, and if you watched the episode of Imapct! with Ultimate X, the cage, and the debut of Desmond Wolfe, there's a chance you saw me on television.  HAZardousMATT toxic 01:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Edge
Well, I need your help at Edge's review. I'll try to see what the problem is at Christian's review. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a couple of concerns I haven't gotten. The whole "Copeland and Cage", "Edge and Christian", etc., needs some attention, and the "his first pay-per-view match in the WWE", I'm not sure what the reviewer is asking to do. I would greatly appreciate your help on that. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  01:41, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm done with Rated-RKO, I'm gonna nominate it. Can you do a check, to see that everything is in "order". -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  17:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Curtis23
Hi, since I don't know how to request for a block, I would thank you for proposing it. Of course, I would support you.-- The Celtic Cross  (talk)  14:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure, you don't have to at all. No problem-- The Celtic Cross  (talk)  14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * :)-- The Celtic Cross  (talk)  14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

WHC
Yes we have discussed it, which is why I don't get why you keep removing the notable info.  TJ   Spyke   00:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-notable stuff, yes. But the stuff in there currently IS notable. As for FL, you are forgetting they are already FL ad got promoted with the current format, so that argument fails.  TJ   Spyke   03:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On-air employees
Thanks for the tip. I'd very much like to give a go at expanding the article as a whole. However, I'm just leaving it a couple of days to see if Crippler4 finishes writing the event section (it's actually my least favourite section to write up) before working on production, aftermath, reception, etc. I'll try and incorporate your format into the article when I get around to it. --  Θaks  ter   20:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)