This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I don't know what the proper process is to bail out of adoption, but I think my interests have passed the quick answer stage. Your attention is better invested elsewhere now. I'm sure you'll be an excellent admin. Good luck! --Pearrari (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I've been busy with school with exams and reports but this weekend im free (YESS!!) I will start hte expansion tommorow.--TrUCo931103:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HAHAHA...you have the right to be a dick...lolz....das great I see we have a new admin to the WP:PW, hey since I have had multiple accounts, can those edits count and be added to my current edit count?--TrUCo931103:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need a little help Mr. Administrator. I'd like my signature to be at the top of my userpage/talk page. Chronic is having a little difficulty though. Please see if you can fix it. Btw, maybe "The Kliq" can step up and be responsible for completing the RR08 article after the event. iMatthew22:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No prob...If that stops working for probably too many people watching it just tell me, I can still give u like 5 more links..lolTrUCo931123:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA
LAX/Archive 5, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk)17:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I am out of retirement, I am still not really going to be active here. I am far to busy in real life, thus I am not really going to be here that much. I am doing quite well actually:-) How are you?--SJP (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WWE SVR 2008
Ok I want to fix the Roster page of this article, and I have done that in my User:Truco9311/Sandbox but because I am using footnotes, the footnotes and the actual page's references get mixed in. Is there a way I can fix that?--TrUCo931123:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol you would defiantly be a good administrator. you are real good lol
every vandilism revert I see gots your signature in it lol.. you are quick :-D
hope u make admin.. good luck
--♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the courteous response. I see you are up for RfA. Good luck, I think your professional and courteous demeanor would be good for an admin - just be careful to keep in mind WP:BITE. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.98.203.237.75 (talk) 07:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clifford the Big Red Dog revert
Could you give me a little insight into your thinking re: making this revert [1]? I don't see anything wrong with the IP's version, and in fact, I think it's an improvement. I looked on the talk page to see whether there was something to speak against it, and there wasn't....I'm just wondering what your reasoning was. Thanks! Gladys J Cortez02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought that the other was perfectly fine, but since you felt the previous revision was better, I have reverted my edit. Cheers, LAX10:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with the shiny new buttons LAX. Hope you wear the lettering right off 'em. In time, of course. OMG, get away from the main page...what are you doing? nooooooo.....Keeper | 7620:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be expecting one. Just kidding. I'm going to start Armageddon. I trust that Matt will finish the Aftermath for SummerSlam. Then, we can continue our PPV quest. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)20:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
C'est la vie. It's fine. Thank you anyways. Tell me if you ever want to help me (remotely funny sounding), but I think I am doing fine now. Thank you, and you don't have to respond to this if you don't want to. Manu-vetalkproSkicontribs19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Chronic presents... a new-admin gift basket
Congrats on your newfound dictatorialjanitorial tools. Here is some random bullshit that you may need in your quest to help you in your quest to harass and persecute innocent bystandersin the maintenance of technical operation of Wikipedia. :D
A bucket with holes at the bottom of it, and a used mop.
Why did you remove [move=sysop]? Last time it was removed, a vandal moved it about and, given the number of revisions, it killed editing for ages moving it back. Please restore the move-protection for administrators only, thanks. Daniel (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked this user. Their edits before you blocked them were not vandalism - they seem to have been made in good faith and the user was participating in discussion on the talkpage. No warning had recently been given. Looking at the report at WP:AIV, I think you should have realised this was a content dispute [2]. Vandalblocks should be for vandalism, removing content may be a legitimate editorial decision (even where others disagree). I recommend going a little easier on the block button... WjBscribe12:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ultraexactzz is now an Administrator
My RfA was successful, and closed with 44 Supports, 6 Opposes, and 1 Neutral. For your support, you have my thanks - I fully intend to live up to the lofty yet not-a-big-deal responsibility you have granted me. For those who opposed my candidacy, I value your input and advice, and hope that I may prove worthy of your trust. Special thanks to both Rudget and bibliomaniac15 for their expert coaching and guidance. I look forward to serving the project, my fellow editors, the pursuit of higher knowledge, et cetera, et cetera. Again, you have my thanks. UltraExactZZClaims~ Evidence01:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for that, we can work together and get the article to GA status. We will need opinions by others. Sorry if I'm taking too long to answer; I'm sort of watching the Democratic debate. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting SS 07 to GA isnt the right move, getting it to FA is the right move =). IT is well sourced and well written. Did you take part in writing it?--TrUCo931101:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course and we can probably work on our PPV's to get them there. And yeah, I would say to wait, since I nominated Unforgiven '04 to the GA-list and there hasn't been no progress. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then, let's continue working. But also, get some breaks here and there. ;) So, your down with working on a PPV one week, then working on another the following? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to, but the Background sections really confuse me. I'm going to start looking over some FA and GA PPV's and learn what Background and Aftermath sections should look like. So, I don't think I should write it because it will not be written too well yet. Also, Which Armageddon are you working on? Blue said I should ask you if I can help you with it. (I'd be glad to write the Event section). iMatthew22:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate for you waiting on my return. ;) But, I'll tell you selling shoes to ungrateful people is the hardest thing for me. But, we can help Matt with Vengeance, that's if he would like Vengeance. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Hey, RR question; is it really necessary to note that HBK and 'Taker were the first two entrants in the Rumble match? P.S. Would it be cool if I replace the Rey Mysterio image with a Jeff Hardy one? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll remove the info. But, yeah, I think the image of Jeff as IC champion would probably fit the Event section, since this was his first WWE title opportunity. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, totally forgot that one. Thanks for the reminder. You know, the whole Finlay info., I think it should be added to the Event, stating that in the Rumble match, Finlay was disqualified for hitting people with the shaleigle. What do you think? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not to sound cocky or whatever, but since you approve of me being reliable, can you give it to me, since this is your decision. I mean, no hard feelings. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I PROMISE I will use it for good USE. If you see that I don't, then I guess as Administrator, you can remove it. But, I promise I won't use it for nonsense. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fo sho. Hey, for the 2 out of 3 falls match, do I write the entire match in one paragraph or do I separate them in three, ex: Street fight, Steel Cage, and Ladder match? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 3,485 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 206 unreviewed articles. Out of 251 total nominations, 37 are on hold, 7 are under review, and 1 is seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The top five categories with the largest backlogs are: Sports and recreation (57 articles), Theatre film and drama (34 articles), Music (19 articles), Transport (17 articles), Politics and government (16 articles), World history (13 articles), and Meteorology and atmospheric sciences (13 articles).
If every participant of WikiProject Good Articles could review just one article in the next week, the backlog would be almost eliminated!
GA Sweeps Update
During January, 57 Good Articles were reviewed. Including those articles that were under GAR or on hold, 35 were kept as GA, 20 delisted, 9 currently on hold or at GAR, and 3 were exempted as they are now Featured Articles.
Reviewer of the Month
Ealdgyth is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for January, based on the assessments made by Epbr123 on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. Ealdgyth, known in real life as Victoria Short, hails from Central Illinois, and has been editing Wikipedia since May 26, 2007. In this short time, she has made significant contributions to 9 Good Articles, including Baldwin of Exeter and Hubert Walter. Her interests in editing are in the areas of the Middle Ages, History, and horses. Outside of Wikipedia, she is starting her own photography business, and owns three horses. She likes to read science fiction, history, and geneology books. Congratulations to our GAN Reviewer of the Month for January!
Other outstanding reviewers recognized during the month of January include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
On Hold versus Failing an Article
This month, I thought I'd focus on a less technical and more of a procedural issue at WP:GAN – determining what the appropriate course of action to take when reviewing an article. Currently, there are four options to decide what to do with an article:
Failing it – it does not meet the criteria; remove the article's listing from WP:GAN and add {{ArticleHistory}} or {{failedGA}} to the article's talk page.
On Hold – The article meets most of the criteria, but might fall short in a few areas; keep it listed at WP:GAN, add #: {{GAOnHold|ArticleName}} ~~~~ below the listing and add {{GAonhold}} to the article's talk page.
Second Opinion – Similar to the on hold option, except an editor is either inexperienced or not knowledgeable enough about a given topic and asks another reviewer to offer another opinion before passing or failing; add #: {{GA2ndopinion|ArticleName}} ~~~~ to WP:GAN below the article's listing and add {{GA2ndoptalk}} to the article's talk page.
So how to you know when an article fails outright, or fails initially, but meets "enough" of the criteria to be placed on hold? The answer to this question probably varies by about the same amount as there are reviewers of Good Articles! Everybody treats this slightly differently. The most important thing to consider is that articles should not be on hold for longer than about one week. Although there is no hard and fast time limit for this, most editors would probably agree that five to seven days is enough time to address any GA-related issues with the article to get it to pass. Some editors have extended this a few days in the past, due to other extenuating circumstances, such as an article's primary editor being very busy with school or work, so they have asked for extra time. But as a general rule, a GA nominee that is placed on hold should meet enough of the criteria to be able to be passed within five to seven days. Some examples of articles that might be placed on hold would be:
the article is mostly complete, but might be missing one topic (subcategory).
minor copyediting is required (needs a few minor manual of style, spelling, or grammatical fixes.
mostly well sourced, but missing maybe a handful of references.
a couple of images need to be tagged with appropriate copyright tags.
On the other hand, an article should be failed if it:
is missing several topic categories, or there are several sections which are very short (1-3 sentences per section).
contains numerous sections which are just lists of information, as opposed to written out as prose.
there's entire sections of text that have no references, or there are a lot of {{cn}} or {{unreferenced}} tags.
has evidence of an active edit war in the article history.
has any {{cleanup}} or other warning tags in various places.
Did You Know...
... that on July 19, 2007, 1,548 good articles that have not been categorized at all were categorized in 15 days?
... that in Chinese Wikipedia, articles need to have at least six net support votes before they are promoted to GA?
... that the English Wikipedia has the most Good Articles, the German Wikipedia has the second most (at over 2000), followed by the Spanish Wikipedia (at over 800), the Chinese Wikipedia (at over 400), and the French Wikipedia (at over 200)?
... that Simple English Wikipedia has zero Good Articles?
... that "Sport and games people" category has the most Good Articles?
... that Virginia Tech massacre (which is now a featured article) was promoted to GA just only about one month after the shooting incident, but took more than seven months to reach FA status?
From the Editors
Originally, I wasn't planning to do "Did you know" other than as a fill-in for Dr. Cash. However, I decided to continue writing this section until I ran out of ideas.
OhanaUnited
Please leave any comments or feedback regarding this issue here.
Don't use the rollback tool in the way you used it on No Way Out (2008) to remove spoilers. It is meant to be to revert vandalism, content disputes or otherwise use the undo tool preferably with a reason. Especially as spoilers are not against wikipedia policy and you are new to the tools I felt I needed to bring this to your attention. –– Lid(Talk)13:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, oops I skipped over that in your orginal message. Sorry about that. You're more than welcome to write that, although I'd still like individual credit for the expansion of the article if you don't mind. iMatthew15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh! *head stops spinning* I was confused when I saw Vengeance in your "Article Currently Expanding" section. Ok, you can write that feud, its not problem. Also, I like the look of your page, you should try the background in light green instead of purple. (My opinion) iMatthew15:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I need help with something else. I'd like my userpage to have my userboxes (not the ones that are hidden currently) on the right side of my page, and the writing on the left of that. Can you do this for me? iMatthew16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at my page. I would like all of the text (currently with an orange background), to be moved into the white background area. iMatthew16:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Btw, I agree with Truco's comment down there. I think you should change the font of your signature, to something more exciting. iMatthew13:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, I have feelings that this article can be made similarly to the Royal Rumble article. But people want to merge them into a list of cage type matches. I think this match is to unique to be like that, and I finished sourcing most of the info. Comments?--TrUCo931121:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nikki as well since there have been alot of HiaC matches, and not all of them were on PPV, and if they were , not all of them have expanded articles. I think I suggested we move them to List of Hell in a Cell matches. Oh thanks, just need to finish sourcing the lead paragraph.--TrUCo931121:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it has work, just in general whether it could. I guess we should wait for more EC matches, for more sources. So are you watching the superbowl?TrUCo931121:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It reads better now. One thing I saw,( I changed it) but you should not wikilink non-full dated dates (i.e. July 6) dates like that should not be wikilinked; July 62007 would be better to be added and wikilinked. But good job on the article, I think you should nominate it for GA now or after you are done cleaning it up.TrUCo931103:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I remember a previous discussion about this and they were like you shouldn't but if that what WP:MOS says than it's alright. You can revert my edits if you want, cuz I wikilinked almost all the dates =), what do you think of the new newsletter format? Go to WP:PWN and look at the February 3rd edition..TrUCo931103:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I took the format from the WP:GAN and I thought it was a good idea because the original took up to much space, it made your talkpage longer. I say we see what people say about it, and if their are no complaints It will be the same format from now on. Did you write the event section for SS 07? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truco9311 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the December to Dismember (2006) article event section, you can easily write the event section. Because the event sections of PPV should not detail move by move, it should give a brief description of the match, like we did at Survivor Series (2007). For all the PPV's I expanded, I have followed the D2D 06 PPV.
Hmmm...Mine...just joking. Mine is unique, but yours is colorful. I really can't decide because alot of members have colorful signatures.--TrUCo931104:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, update it. Like I did to mine, remember I had the checkered BG and then I completely revamped it? You should do the same. If you want to change it, I can change it for you.
It looks good, just when you say that they hit Move A, you want to follow that with saying that they pinned him, to better inform the reader on how the wrestler one. But other than that its good, better than before.TrUCo931114:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, about your signature, do you like Matt's design? Or tell me what kind of design you desire and I will see if I can try tot get/make it.--TrUCo931115:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They look great you are getting the hang of this, just a few things I saw, I saw a couple spelling errors, (sorry wasn't able to fix them on my own), also in my view I think that when you write the result of the match you should say something like this "Umaga would then regain control of the match and hit the Samoan spike on Kennedy, leading Umaga to successfully pin Kennedy, thus winning the match and retaining the Intercontinental Championship." or something like that because when you write the move they used to win, and then the pin and result, the paragraph flows more (but this is just my view).TrUCo931123:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Rumble (2005) has been listed for Peer review. Please review this article and make suggestions on how it can be improved before being nominated for Good Article status. The peer review can be found here.
NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members.
Ron Killings and The Big Show are still being reported as to having signed WWE contracts. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for their names to be continually added to the WWE Roster article and information about their returns being added to their own articles. There is also apparently an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick.
Bobby Lashley is being reported to have been released by WWE. His profile has been removed from WWE.com. But again, there is no reliable source for his release, so be prepared to revert his removal from the roster article and edits to his own article.
*The number of stub articles increased this week, but a large jump in the number of total articles means that the percentage of stub articles still dropped from 21.63% to 21.51%. Please check out the stub article subpage to see what you can help with (even if you can only add a reference or two).
Professional wrestling articles by quality and importance
You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. By default, the full newsletter is sent to your talk page. However, you have several delivery options at your disposal. Below are the options:
Hi LAX, hope your doing well with the admin tools! First off, just a quick note that I won't be doing much in content development work this week, but will be doing lots of work from the 9th - 17th February on Wikipedia. Secondly, I don't know whether this will interest you while improving the Survivor Series 2002 article, but I have found the whole of a RAW episode from the week before Survivor Series on YouTube which may help you. If you wish, I can provide you a link to it's location. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feuds
Nice job with the Armageddon feuds. ;) Sorry if I didn't log in yesterday, but I had a pre-Super Bowl party and well the rest is history. ;) But, I will finish the last match, I promise you that. P.S. Patriots are so gonna win. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)20:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh because you don't have that much knowledge? Well I can work on the background section and you can work on the event/aftermath section. But blue still has to agree.TrUCo931123:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be ok. Now we just need Blue's opinion. Is DMN really in the kliq, he rarly speaks to us and makes contributions to the Kliq.TrUCo931123:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. ;) Umm, well like I told Truco, adding him without him knowing doesn't really make any sense, if you'd like I'll help you in inviting him. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. :( I just hope that the Patriots don't let the Giants beat them. P.S. I can't find any of the "thank you for supporting me on my RFA" templates, can you? -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ugggg, Matt just rub it in, since he's a Giants fan. Anyways, I've asked Matt just to invite Zenlax to join, that way you and I can start working on the Rumble. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)03:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you guys can still work on that, but once your down, Zenlax can move onto another project, I told him he was welcome to choose any. iMatthew200811:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, LAX, just wanted to thank you for inviting me to join your editing group and you'd be happy to know that I've added myself to two projects. Also, this came to mind, the 2005 Taboo Tuesday article has been created by a User:Cimmo and I just wanted to let you know first hand that the user most likely took the article, but if not then I'll be more than happy to expand the article. ZenlaxTCS19:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're welcome on the notice. Then, can the article be expanded between the group? Also, just wanted to let you know that I'm all better and I'm starting to work on the event section for WrestleMania 21. Also, I like your userpage design, that I'd like for it to be on my userpage, but I'm having problems with it; if its alright, do you think you can help me with correcting the problem? ZenlaxTCS20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, if anymore are needed then I think they should be included. The colors I would like to use would be in the Green range; one in particular would be the color Forest Green. And thank you for taking your time to help me out. ZenlaxTCS20:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course; the black color I would like to substitute with Forest Green, the purple color I would like to replace it with Yellow Green and for the Userboxes / Barnstars I would like for the background to be replaced with Olive Drab. That's basically all the colors that I see that would need to be replaced with. ZenlaxTCS20:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, take your time; I don't expect you to finish it all in one day. I understand you are currently working on other projects and I wouldn't want to take you off your tasks. Before I forget, I added a show and hide feature to the Other on-screen talent table and I hope it will not be a problem. ZenlaxTCS19:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You are busy. This might sound like a stupid question but, I'll ask it anyway; I was actually thinking of expanding Backlash (2004), after I'm done with WrestleMania XX and 21, and my question to you is do I have to ask someone to help me expand it or can I work on it? ZenlaxTCS20:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd be happy for your company and I know I have a long way to go in finishing the WrestleMania's, which probably gives you time to work on your projects and gives us the time to work on it. Though, I wouldn't want to come between something you and Blue discussed in expanding. ZenlaxTCS20:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well since it's my first expansion, I wanted to give a good try at expanding the article. That being said I'm more than welcome for any contributions from other Wikipedians, so go ahead. -- Oakster Talk 11:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, Zenlax told me that Cimmo created the article? Does this guy seriously listen? Anyways, I'll be working on the Rumble article and if you need helping on Taboo Tuesday, just hit me up. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)23:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one, I'm trying to see what started the feud between the two, but somehow it goes back to 1995, where Shawn blamed Sid for costing him the WWE title at WrestleMania XI and I can't find any refs. when Shawn became the number one contender to face Sid at the Rumble. I guess, I will need help. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I know. I was going to copy and edit some stuff similar to the Rumble '94, but I don't know what started it all. And yeah, if you go to Sid's article, it says after the night after WrestleMania XI, Sid turned on Shawn. Maybe we will have to need some pointers from Gary. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sooo tired. I just finished writing the entire event section for Taboo Tuesday. (It took me about an hour, but thats ok.) I'm getting off for tonight, as I'm very tired now. Maybe tomorrow night, I'll work on OTE or Vengeance, not sure yet. iMatthew200802:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O-M-G. I was going to warn him, cause he seemed to undo, basically the same stuff he continued to go on, but I didn't want a "confrontation". Anyways, what article do you want to finish? (that the Kliq started) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Austin and ECW match/segments are very good. You really got the hang of it. Now for the Women's battle royal...Battle Royals/elimination matches/royal rumble tend to be long, especially if they have alot of competitors. So in this case, the women's battle royal may have to stay as is since there are many eliminations.--TrUCo931101:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Those type of matches should only list the eliminations and that is it. I think one we r done all these projects we should work only on 1 a week to make them a GA/FA.--TrUCo931101:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you watch User:Save Us 229, he is kinda holding a grudge against me for kinda proving a point about dirt sheet websites. Check my user page for more info, he has removed all my comments and a warning about personally attacking me here at this link [3]TrUCo931101:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, cuz they went crazy on me look at their final comment on my talk page, then look at their talk page history and look at their edit summaries. I even apologized for no reason and they went off like that, then they removed that warning i mentioned earlier. Wow, owning the WWE roster page, very interesting. I want to say so many words here but I know I can't.TrUCo931101:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know if I am taking one, it' just an idea thrown out there. This little epidemic has never happened before and is making me have thoughts of retirement from wiki..but I think i will let it go..--TrUCo931102:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd possibly like to write the event section for OTE 98. I'd like to try to get WMXX finished, and maybe even SummerSlam 02. Can you help me with Vengeance 2004. I thought I could do it myself, but I have too much going on that it will end up never getting done. I need some help with it. iMatthew200814:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think that The Kliq should vote somebody to be the leader (like the GM). We need somebody to act like the manager of The Kliq. The person would have to always update The Kliq's main page, help out on all of the projects. Stuff like that. iMatthew200814:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I think we should be able to state something like a proposal of why you would want yourself (in general) to be voted at the leader. iMatthew200815:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. I was trying to fix the citation next to his birth name and a page redirected me to a "Spam filter notice" which explained that the website, www.100megsfree4.com, was a spam link to the article. No worries, though, I removed them from the article. Sorry if I bothered you with my nonsense. ZenlaxTCS20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for understanding. :) Any suggestions on what more to add to the aftermath of WrestleMania XX, as I am currently confused on what more to add. ZenlaxTCS20:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting me!My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers!Master of PuppetsCall me MoP!☺17:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:3bulletproof16
bullet was recently blocked for apparently posting what IMO no reason at all (here is the apparent edit that the blocking admin cited: [4]). Since you are obviously familiar with the Hornetman situation, could you review this? TJSpyke05:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LAX, please don't unblock Bulletproof if you are thinking of doing that. If you did, other admins would come along and suggest that there's a connection between you and Bulletproof, as you are both wrestling editors and it wouldn't go down well on your side. I suggest you read this before even thinking of unblocking. D.M.N. (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the note on my userpage. Any comments for helping with content development for the forthcoming week (until Saturday at least) will be rejected on request. I am basically taking a "Mini-Break". Regards, D.M.N. (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptably verified?
Greetings, I am aware of a general situation pertaining to Jack Henry & Associates and as hard as such things are to verify on the web, I believe I found a reference verifying it. However, one of their employees is quite adamant in his disagreement. So I am seeking a neutral opinion. Do you feel the reference here is adequate? If not, I want to retract the entry. Jack Henry & Associates#Criticism & Controversy. Thanks for your time! --Pearrari (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just asking if, in your opinion, the reference meets WP standards. It was challenged by someone in their marketing department. It is probably his job to ensure the web only lists glorious things about their products. They're probably sensitive about this issue, too. There are lots of companies offering development support for their product. Don't see that for competing solutions. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that those companies wouldn't exist if their services weren't needed. Nonetheless, it seemed appropriate to request a second opinion. --Pearrari (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki freinds
Hey LAX, do you like LAX the tagteam? hey I do not know how to write your name like you do but could you please sighn your name on my user page were it say's Wiki User i'm cool with. Thanks, Steelerfan-9418:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
OMG, I thought you died. Just kidding. Umm, I'm pretty sure you know the whole bulletproof controversy, if not go to WP:PW and read the "info". Umm, there's a new poll at the Kliq page, go vote. And, me and Zenlax are currently working on Vengeance '05 and welcome back. ;) -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)00:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. The reason I bring it up, is because maybe someone else might be interested in finishing the Aftermath section. But, don't make Armageddon your priority. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)22:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it be notable to add, for example if Cena lost the title, then I think it should be added, but if he was able to retain the title, then I guess it shouldn't be added. I probably didn't make sense with this. -- ThinkBlue (HitBLUE)01:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is this pics licensing correct? The source doesn't come from a WWF website and I doubt the WWF would release that pic as a publicity photo, if they in fact took the photograph. --EndlessDan14:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That licensing is not correct either. They never showed any of Owen's footage during the pay-per-view. Also, the pic appears to be coming from the crowd. I think you should take it down. --EndlessDan18:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, you'd probably be more privy to what (if any) licenses apply. I saw OTE live back in the day and I can tell you for a fact that image wasn't shown on the ppv. And I don't believe the WWF would ever release that sort of picture. There's no way releasing something like that could benefit them. Based on where the pic is coming from and from where it was taken, it looks like someone took the pic from the crowd. I don't think there is a license that can apply to this pic. --EndlessDan18:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I've taken notice to you always messing with images (including deleting some of mine!), so I figured you'd know what to do. --EndlessDan18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, to create the article. What about yourself? Another dumb question from me; do you know what a "brawling" match is? ZenlaxTCS20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I can make time for Backlash. As for the "brawling" match, I have no clue what it means. That's why I asked. What would you like to work on Backlash? ZenlaxTCS20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, as long as something is done then something is added to the section. Also, I'd like to add that following this weekend I will be out of town and won't be back until Tuesday, the reason I mention this is for you not to work the article all alone. ZenlaxTCS20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been over some of your articles and I've noticed your edits to the event sections have more report to them; would you like for me to add a little more to the event or is it just fine the way it is? ZenlaxTCS21:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to start conflict, but yes and no. Again, I don't want a problem between us. But, I just wanted your word and see if you wanted to add more to the report. ZenlaxTCS21:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but could you please add a more specific tag to this article? It's on my watchlist and it's unclear to me what needs to be cleaned up. Chubbles (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: No Mercy (2006)
I was thinking about adding in a part about the Mysterio/Chavo feud, but I don't know. The background's already pretty long, and I'm just concerned that adding in more will make it too long. What do you think though? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will. I'm just trying to get everything down to start with, so I don't have to keep reading through match reports, etc, and then I'll refine it a later stage. It won't be going into the mainspace like that, that's for sure. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I know you're busy but i was wondering if you could spare the time to give the event part of my expansion attempt of No Way (2006) a look over. I've rewritten it, but I'm not sure whether I should post it into the mainspace yet. fell free to make any necessary changes, etc, and let me know what'cha think. Thanks in advance! Regards, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thanks 
:.
