User talk:Wrestlinglover

Home	Talk	Contributions	Subpages	Awards and Accomplishments

Hello!, and welcome to my talk page. Just leave me a message if you want. If I did something wrong, then just leave, I'll find out later. God Bless!--WillC 03:34, 3 August 2008 (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)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 2, No. 6 — 4th Quarter, 2009
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q4 2009, the project has:

• 130 Featured Articles
• 35 Featured Lists
• 13 Featured Topics

• 35 A-Class Articles
• 347 Good Articles
• 4 Good Topics

---

Content

• Changes to Featured and Good content
• News items and announcements

• Editorial: Being bold
• Featured editor: PresN

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • Assessment – talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • Video game images – talk

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.

• 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 ^(talk2me) 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)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

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. --  Θakster   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. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh, homie shut your ass up and go to sleep ;)^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 11:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mark Youngblood

The article Mark Youngblood has been proposed for deletion 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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} 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)

WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter

Delivered: 18:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

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 Sasata (submissions), our current leader, who, at the time of writing, has more listed points than Hunter Kahn (submissions) and TonyTheTiger (submissions) (second and third place respectively) combined. A special well done also goes to Fetchcomms (submissions)- 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 Wikipedia: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)

DYK for OVW Heavyweight Championship

On February 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article OVW Heavyweight Championship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:01, 5 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)

DYK for ROH World Television Championship

On February 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article ROH World Television Championship, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thank you from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:00, 8 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)