User talk:Wrestlinglover/Archive 15

Fire Pro Wrestling pages
I'm not sure what to think. There was very little content, and the pages could be split if/when someone decides to expand them. My big concern is that just redirecting the articles doesn't make sense because the Fire Pro Wrestling article doesn't really give much information on the series. There was a little bit of content in each article (about one sentence in each) that is lost if the articles are just redirected without merging the content. I'm really busy right now, or I would copy and paste the relevant infofmation into the redirected article or figure out some other way to fix this. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'd love to see them expanded, but I don't really even want to lose the infoboxes for the time being. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Having never participated in one, how long does an AfD last? I'm already getting tired of repeating myself.  HAZardousMATT toxic 21:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I already started to. After repeating the same thing three times I just walked away. ArcAngel is now repeating the same thing over and over again. I had to warn ZRF since he's already at 2RR on Curt Hawkins and Zack Ryder. Doubt he'll listen.  HAZardousMATT toxic 03:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

TNA World Title
Keep me posted on the Angle reign situation. Remember you can always cite the archived link from TNAwrestling.com which notes "KURT ANGLE STRIPPED OF THE TNA WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE – CORNETTE ANNOUNCES KING OF THE MOUNTAIN MATCH." Also keep an eye on WrestleMania 23 - IP keeps noting Meltzers attendance number which has been argued to death. Refer him to WT:PW. Thanks. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. I saw your response to the above post on 3bulletproof16's page, in which you agreed with my edit.  Since then, Justa Punk left a baseless warning on my talk page.  I have posted several specific Wikipedia policy cites and talk page mentions on the Wrestlemania 23 talk page ; whether Justa Punk is deliberately ignoring them or is unaware of them is unclear.  However, his warning template followed his uncivil comments on the WM23 talk page.
 * You appear to have had some previous interaction with these editors; I have not. I certainly intend to take this matter to dispute resolution if this continues.  Despite Justa Punk's language on my talk page, I seriously doubt that he would want our respective comments to be reviewed by an admin.  Perhaps you will mediate instead, before the situation progresses.  But if you decide not to, I certainly understand.  Thanks for reading this.208.120.152.75 (talk) 09:32, 18 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 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering
Whether you finished reviewing this article? --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 05:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply, didn't log in on weekend. Will go and check out the review now. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 03:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be able to help
I am MC Steel, a adminastrator on LPW Wiki. I need your help. On a championship page, the current champion has, for eg. 33+ days. Do you think you could make a template that would update each day, something like: (r. 12/12/12 – undefined) Meaning the title was won on 12 December, 2012. Hope you can help. MC Steel (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TNA Ultimate X pics
Hey, I remembered my wife snapped two pics of the ring during the Ultimate X match when we went to Impact. We've got one of the ring before the match and one afterward with the MCMG celebrating. Think these would be usable somewhere?  HAZardousMATT toxic 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done and done. Use in good health. :)  HAZardousMATT toxic 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Kong
Thanks. I've become a little bit bored with the WWE Women's Champ project, so I'm going to try working on the holders of the Knockout's title for awhile. BTW, the List of TNA Women's Knockout Champions has over ten reigns now, if you were looking to make that a FL. Nikki  ♥  311   18:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q4 2009)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  21:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Title lists
Maybe we should settle this. If you don't like the format used for title lists, bring one of them up for discussion at FLRC. If the general consensus is to keep them as FL, then that is approval to use the existing format. In the review you can present your proposed format. Sound fair? No one else seems to have a problem with the current formats of the list.  TJ   Spyke   17:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * First, where is this discussion, because I don't recall such a discussion happening. I sure as hell know there hasn't been "multiple" discussions. There was nothing wrong with the format currently used, the format you want is bulky and makes it more difficult for newer editors to edit. Your format also makes it harder to fix screw-ups (for example, sorting by title length under your format puts all vacancies at the top of the list, ahead of the longest reigns). I have mentioned that problem your format has with sorting vacant title reigns (a problem which the current format does not have), but you either don't see the problem or you refuse to acknowledge it (BTW, the IWGP article has this problem too. User:The Rambling Man this out at the FL-review 3 weeks ago but no one has fixed the problem in the article). There is no requirement to avoid using abbreviations (which includes state abbreviations), so not sure why you have a problem there (and when you get city names wrong too). Speaking of which, why do you want your format to put wrestler names first and their team name in parenthesis? That seems real backwards, it should be the other way around. Your format has a lot of problems and there seems to be no benefit it offers compared to the format already used. I disagree with your opinion about using your proposed format.  TJ   Spyke   18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have searched through the archives and can not find any discussion on using the format you like, am I just supposed to take your word that there was a consensus? You also have not answered my question about what supposed benefits your format offers over the existing one. As for ease of use, I was talking about newer editors, I can edit your overly-convulated mess of a format.  TJ   Spyke   16:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The argument you use for wanting to use your format is sorting. Your format does not offer any improvement over the sorting used in the current format (if anything it is worse. Take the WHC article for example, anytime there is a tie between the current reign and a past reign, the current reign gets listed first). As for the discussion of your format, I wonder how many people actually looked at the code of it vs. how many just looked at the end result (because your format is less efficient, it requires more code to get the same result and is also less flexible). And the goal with editing is to make it so everyone can contribute. I think this issue needs to be discussed because the format you like is worse than the current one (you keep saying how bad it is, HOW is it bad? It is more flexible, and does the same thing as your proposed format but with less code needed). As for abbreviations, it is standard to abbreviate. There doesn't seem to be any guideline or policy on it (only the general guideline covering articles, none specifically for lists), but I am asking about that. I don't see the problem though, especially since you already want to overlink everything.  TJ   Spyke   00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Fame Ball
No problem. And thanks a lot for passing it, that's the sixth GA for WP:GAGA. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Topics
Hey Will, Happy late New Year. ;) I hope you had a good New Year. I'm doing good, enjoying life, and the New Year. Oh, yeah, good reviewer, good review. The review is going fine, if something comes up, I'll let you know. Yeah, that's what I'm aiming for. We can also get points in the WikiCup. Yeah, maybe. I'm a get Edge's book as a reference for E&C. Just to let you know, if you have any articles with OWOW, the recaps for both Raw and SmackDown, who knows how much more, just went dead. I had to replace a couple of them in Edge's article, so. --  ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know, and it sucks. Currently, I have a DYK?, so. That's cool. Do you have anything submitted yet? I attempted to work in Bret's article, but gave up due to the constant changes in the article. Well, I just wanted to let you know about the site's reports being dead, in case you had any of them in your articles. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cool, I wish you good luck with those projects. ;) Thanks, I didn't notice until you let me know that the article passed. Had a relaxed weekend, and away from it all... for a little while. Um, I'll nominate the topic, and let you know when it's been added to the GTC page. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I created the topic page. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, for a little while, but I had to go "back to work" here. Alright, sounds good. I'll try to work on the lead. Yeah, I still want to work on Styles and Tomko. Do you? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, if you want to do that. I don't mind, really. As long as we both are working on the same thing, I gots no problem with it. ;) Yeah, tell me about it. I went from this to this. When it gets promoted, there's that "sensation" that gets you alive, I guess. That's happened to me. Amen to the drama thing. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds good. I can start developing Styles and Tomko's leads. Thanks, I appreciate that. Yeah, she's a good actress. I figured good actress, should have a good article. Yeah, me too. Too much controversy here. Yeah, if you see HBK's article, the article is now written in in-universe perspective. I tried "going back", but was reverted, so. TBH, I just don't care anymore. There were agreements to keep it that way, obviously some are still not getting used to it. I'll still be active with the article, but my hopes for an FA run are now down the drain, which makes me sad. You know, I worked hard on Shawn's article to bring it to what it is today, and for someone to tell me that I'm ruining the article, it's too much to handle. IDK, if you saw, but I no longer comment on his talkpage, due to those comments, so. And believe me, I know what you're going through. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  20:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess. I feel you on that. Too much, cause these damn people just don't understand. It's sad, really. A couple of times I'm home and asking myself 'Should I go online and check?', but then I have that side of me saying, 'What for? It's gonna be the same crap.' Mainly, that side is wrestling related. Funny, I'm losing my wrestling interest, though, I watch Raw to see Shawn. If he's not on screen, I change the channel. I guess I owe this to the people who have insulted me. Yeah, we should talk on IM. I hide my IM thing when I'm at school, cause before it made a noise when I logged in, and irritated one of my professors, so. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  01:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I really don't have a problem... [with you know]... just some of the stuff that occurs that I don't agree with. Like the HBK situation. Yeah, I saw that. They went head-to-head with Raw, which was kind of stupid of TNA to do. Basically, they got the WWE people that really aren't going to help them, except maybe Jeff Hardy and Mr. Kennedy. Hogan is kinda ruin TNA. 'You gotta prove yourself to be here', has he proved himself to be in TNA? That's your view of things, really. But, you gotta admit HBK is still a great competitor. I don't watch SD anymore. Same crap, I guess. Yeah, how come Christian isn't getting any type of "hype" as champion? I mean, 'Taker and the Irish dude are getting that hype and stuff. Alright, I'll try when I'm done with an assignment in school, or when I get home. Hey, small town, less controversy. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Global Honoured Crown
I have no real understanding of the Wiki codes, I just crudely copy & paste from elsewhere and fill in the blanks so I had no idea. What does the code look like to centre it all automatically? Or is there one that already uses it so I might continue to copy&paste and fill in the blanks? I'm sure I'll get bored another night and update somemore. Tony2Times (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian
No problem, thanks. --  Θaks  ter   13:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chris Parks
The information about his education and previous jobs is not only complete nonsense(seriously, University at 15? Director of Marketting for TWO sports franchises in cities a thousand miles from each other at the age of 20? Use common sense!) but the link provided as a "source" is to an unreliable fanzine. Unless proper sourcing is done, that information is not verified and should not be in the article. Just like the garbage that he played for the Pittsburgh Steelers, which also came from the same "source". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.172.179 (talk) 14:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RE
Im going to have to disagree. WWE used that very word "complementing" in the original press release, and thus the word shouldn't be viewed as OR. I will go a head and remove the questionable sources, however will return to original cut back text as it does a more detailed job summarizing history with less text. Furthermore, the text "Being a professional wrestling championship, it is not won legitimately; it is instead won via a scripted ending to a match or awarded to a wrestler because of a storyline." seems a bit ambiguous. The revised text, "Championship reigns are determined by professional wrestling matches, in which competitors are involved in scripted rivalries. These narratives create feuds between the various competitors, which cast them as villains and heroes." adds greater and more specific detail to the note. -- Unquestionable Truth -- 05:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, homie shut your ass up and go to sleep ;)-- Unquestionable Truth -- 11:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Youngblood


The article Mark Youngblood has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * BLP unsourced since February 2007, marginal notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 29 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 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Attendance Royal Rumble 2010
Source: http://www.wrestleview.com/news2009/1265300865.php?style=dark 201.66.208.124 (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling
Hello. I am the user from the WWE article. You talked about making a "Criticism" section. I generally find these not to be too good of an idea, but if you disagree, maybe you could help start one? Once I see the direction you take it, I think it will be easier to add to it.

Still, it's Wikipedia policy to avoid criticism sections BECAUSE of the bias it usually introduces, or even legitimizes, is it not? I think one small paragraph is much less biased than either a whole section or nothing at all. Although I'd love to see your take! Cheers, Sourside21 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand many wrestling fans feel the term fake is incorrect. But understand, these are not my words, but the words of mainstream coverage of the WWE. I would love to discuss more on the subject, but the other two users who have undone my edits seven and three times (respectively) do not seem to have anything to say (check the talk pages). Cheers, Sourside21 (talk) 02:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Leaving PW
I've always had a good rapport with you, so I'm just giving you a heads up that I'm definitely leaving the project. It's such a pain in the ass these days. We have guidelines, people ignore them. We enforce the guidelines, dozens of socks or hundreds of IP users who have never made a single edit come out of the woodwork to try to stack consensus with no reasoning other than "I want that." We report stuff to AN/I and get chastised for being part of the PW project. People make unsourced claims (most recently the Global Championship) and then say "Oh, it's on this page" and just want others to take it at their word without even providing a link. The project members fight against each other, fight against trolls, and then get bitten at the noticeboards for being wrestling fans. It's just not worth it anymore, y'know?

Anyway, I hope those Ultimate X pictures work out when you expand that article a bit. See ya 'round.  HAZardousMATT toxic 22:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Light Heavyweight/Junior Heavyweight
Well originally the NWA had three "Wõrld" titles - in other words, not tied to one territory and no territory was allowed to create a a world title for that level as well. They were Heavyweight, Junior Heavyweight and Light Heavyweight, so in that regard they're related as they all started as singular world titles sanctioned by the NWA. Each title had a main booker early on, and control of the Light Heavyweight was given to Salvador Lutteroth moving the title to mexico. when CMLL withdrew from the NWA in the late 1980s they kept the title, it was just no longer officially an NWA endorsed title. I can tell you the Mexican definition of "Junior Heavyweight" is 97 Kg (214 lbs.) to 107 Kg (231 lbs.) - I am not sure if that's the general definition outside of Mexico. I do however have a book that may hold the answer - "National Wrestling Alliance - the Untold story of the monopoly that strangled Pro wrestling" by Tim Hornbaker. I've read it a while ago and recently went over it again for the Light Heavyweight title, I do believe it mentions the creation of the Junior Heavyweight title as well, who booked it early on and the "behind the scenes" of the early title changes. I can check and see if it's got some helpful information on weightlimit etc.

And thanks, I took a break to work on the redlinked articles but I should be going through all three NWA "World" titles promoted by CMLL (Light Heavyweight, Middleweight and Welterweight) for FL.  MPJ  -DK 08:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:WCW navigational boxes
I have nominated wcw navigational boxes for renaming to world championship wrestling navigational boxes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:NWA navigational boxes
I have nominated nwa navigational boxes for renaming to national wrestling alliance navigational boxes. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Zack Ryder and Curt Hawkins
Why are you picking on them? How come The Naturals aren't merged together even though they broke up on the indies after Hawkins and Ryder? 69.243.42.251 (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:
No. Sorry, but I'm struggling to find time to finish off my current project with 'Blue as it is. I definetly do not have time to start a new one. ♥ Nici ♥ Vampire ♥ Heart ♥ 13:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: E&C
It's okay, I haven't worked on E&C, either. Too much going on. I'll try these next weeks to get E&C. At the moment, I don't think I can get to it. Yeah, maybe. I know, right? It was about time that it get promoted. It took too long. I hope you gave yourself credit for the WikiCup. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  21:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, no wonder, you bad boy... I'm just kidding. ;) Well, you helped out with Rated-RKO, and if I do remember right, you helped me out during Edge's review. I'd say it qualifies as helping out. :) Don't worry, I have a feeling we'll get E&C. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  18:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was "A lady never tells". ;) Yeah, let's do our separate projects, and then we'll meet in the middle. :) Like what, hanging out with your lady? I'm just kidding. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  22:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 February newsletter
Round one is over, and round two has begun! Congratulations to the 64 contestants who have made it through, but well done and thank you to all contestants who took part in our first round. A special well done goes to, our round one winner (1010 points), and to and , who were second and third respectively (640 points/605 points). Sasata was awarded the most points for both good articles (300 points) and featured articles (600 points), and TonyTheTiger was awarded the most for featured topics (225 points), while Hunter Kahn claimed the most for good topics (70). claimed the most featured lists (240 points) and featured pictures (35 points), claimed the most for Did you know? entries (490 points),  claimed the most for featured sounds (70 points) and  claimed the most for In the news entries (40 points). No one claimed a featured portal or valued picture.

Credits awarded after the end of round one but before round two may be claimed in round two, but remember the rule that content must have been worked on in some significant way during 2010 by you for you to claim points. The groups for round two will be placed up shortly, and the submissions' pages will be blanked. This round will continue until 28 April, when the top two users from each group, as well as 16 wildcards, will progress to round three. 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; thank you to all doing this last round, and particularly to those helping at WikiCup/Reviews. 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! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

TNA Champions Page or whatever you want to call it
The discussion about it on the regular discussion page got archived, so don't forget about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.1.102 (talk) 18:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Consensus
Uh, you don't know what a consensus is. A consensus does not require EVERYONE to agree. Consensus means (taken right from Wikitionary): "General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision-making and follow-up action." 75% of people agreeing (it was 9-3) qualifies as consensus. If you disagree, you can try and get a new consensus, but the current consensus is to do tag team names first (whether you like it or not, so stop ignoring consensus).  TJ   Spyke   01:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't get it. I have read the section, there is consensus to use teams name again. Do not vandalize the page again just because the overwhleming consensus was against you. This is the last warning.  TJ   Spyke   02:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I SHOWED you where the consensus was reached. After the consensus was reached, the discussion came to a natural end. You obviously are choosing to ignore it. If you want to change the consensus, start a new discussion, but do not disrupt Wikipedia by ignoring the established consensus.  TJ   Spyke   19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone saying they liked one format over the other does contribute to a consensus, someone doesn't have to into why they support it. I don't know why you don't want to just accept that the consensus is against you.   TJ   Spyke   19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, try growing up instead of insulting people online because your life is that dull.  TJ   Spyke   20:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lockdown 09 logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Lockdown 09 logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.


 * If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

ROH World Television Championship
I reviewed this article, and unfortunately I did not determine it to meet the GA criteria. Several points of contention are spelled out on the GA subpage. If you believe my assessment to be in error, you may take it to Good Article reassessment. Regards, Nosleep  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 00:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Money in the Bank ladder match
Hi I checked wwe.com and it list Kofi as being in the match if you would like to check your self here is the link -- Steam   Iron  05:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It ok just thought I would let you know.-- Steam   Iron  05:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.

Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gangrel
Sure, I'll source it, though don't expect a miracle of some kind, cause I'm kind of "blank" in that area, as well. But, I'll do it... I'll be happy to do it. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  00:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hopefully that's the case, and stuff. :) -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been good, just stressed with a couple of articles. How 'bout you? What you've been up to? -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  01:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm stressed about school, my job, and what I do here. A novel? What's it about? I don't need to worry, I'm currently leading in my bracket. :) Wow, she's got some good looking eye color. Are you "WM-HC"? Yeah, I hear ya ["and trying to find enough time in the day to do all this"]. -- ThinkBlue   (Hit   BLUE)  03:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Dabomb87 (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Davemillicanbelts.com
I saw that you've uploaded several photos of championship belts from davemillicanbelts.com. I'm going to upload the JCW Heavyweight and Tag Team Championships, and was wondering if the site has allowed all photos to be published on Wikipedia or only those championships which you've already uploaded. Juggalobrink (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Juggalobrink (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirects
Had no idea. Thought redirects were bad and should be fixed, but I know better now. Thanks.TheFBH (talk) 03:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)