User talk:Justa Punk: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:05, 22 November 2007

Reply

Read the edit summaries next time. -- bulletproof ^3:16 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this edit summary? [1]-- bulletproof ^3:16 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh yes it does. Check some other event articles. Its just standard WP:PW article format. Links are linked regardless of notability. -- bulletproof ^3:16 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only when listing results in event articles. -- bulletproof ^3:16 10:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True but either way thats how the results are formatted. -- bulletproof ^3:16 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tag Team Champs

Actually, it has been announced by WWE. Please see http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/5046390/tagtitlesswitch Thanks, --Naha|^(talk) 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's unusual! They normally wait until the following week's TV. Thanks Justa Punk 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWF

Hey man, why is it you can use WWE.com as a canonical source. But I cant use the OFFICIAL site of the AWF in the same fashion??? 210.193.228.114 failed to sign this message

Because WWE's notability has already been established. AWF's has not. !! Justa Punk !! 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, Im from Sydney. I attend some of these shows. People travel from other states to see these shows. They are one of the top two promotions in this country. How can you question the notabilty? I dont see you questioning notability of other crap like 3PW...210.193.228.114 failed to sign this message

Don't make statements like this without third party evidence. At this point I have no reason to believe you. Original opinion is not good enough for Wikipedia. Please PROVE your statements are true with sources outside the promotion. !! Justa Punk !! 03:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get someone to verify my claims? How bout this website: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/awf-au.html ??? Parradudes failed to sign this message

Results of shows is not an appropriate source. You need verifiable news reports to confirm everything that has been marked on the AWF article. I suggest again that you fully review the rules of notability at WP:NOT !! Justa Punk !! 08:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your such a friggin expert on Wikipedia why dont you read this. Parradudes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.228.114 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion for AWF

First, this is not the proper page to be discussing this issue. You should instead be using the AWF talk page.
210.193.228.114, you need to read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not allow original research. In other words, the fact that you attended some of these shows is irrelevant. You need to cite credible sources, and statements need to be verifiable. Until then, you cannot include such information on the page.
Justa Punk, I think you went a bit heavy with the {{fact}} tags. It's terribly distracting from the article.

You may also want to contact the people at the Wikiproject for professional wrestling; they may be able to help you more on this article. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is to be continued on the AWF talk page

Yo

Hey Punk, this isnt in relation to the AWF. Just thought I'd say "no hard feelings" and that you are doing Wikipedia a service by sticking to its guidlines. PD 09:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from Hybrid

I think you're wrong. The show scripted the results, so clearly they would be the most reliable source for the results. The Hybrid T/C 07:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should be talking about this on the AWF talk page. !! Justa Punk !! 07:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWF

While I agree that AWF is not notable, what you are suggesting is canvassing and is generally frowned on in Wikipedia. Also, I am coming at this article from an Australian perspective rather than a wrestling one. I know next to nothing about professional wrestling and would be unable to help.

Let the AfD take its course. The closing admin will look not just at the numbers for each side but the arguments put forward. If the decision is to keep the article, then we need to move on. If it hasn't improved in a month or two, then it can be listed again. I think you have done a good job of putting your case and there is little else you can do. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Hi Im Truco9311, or in reality Kevin, and I proposed to split the WWE Brand Extension article into the WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft, and I need at least 7-10 signatures so I can start splitting them. If you may, join the discussion here--TrUcO9311 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWE

I thought I would explain why I reverted your revert. The previous user didn't delete anything, they just moved it down to the section about the Wellness Policy, which is probably where it should be since the investigation is about the Wellness Policy. TJ Spyke 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I thought he did! I checked through the diff tab and it looked like all he did was delete it. Thanks for the correction. !! Justa Punk !! 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers

You may want to read WP:SPOILER and take into account that this trumps project "guidelines". –– Lid^(Talk) 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate collection of information does not apply here, in fact it's meaning is for articles that are about non-notable bands or your local KFC. Your argument that this is an encyclopedia and not a wrestling website is perfectly apt, and is why the information should be obstructed. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, I do not. Spoilers are not US-centric and neither is this website. If information has aired it can no longer be considered a spoiler. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: No policies seem to be being violated, certainly not PoV pushing or vandalism. I've replied at WPANI, but in all honesty, we're not here to save US users from spoilers! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PWInsider

So what did WWE do that contridicted what PWInsider did anyway? Mshake3 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And since you feel so strongly about it, would you please remove all those WrestleView sources from One Night Stand (2005)? Many of them are cited directly from PWInsider, and are therefore, in your opinion, unreliable. Mshake3 (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't accuse you of anything. I was asking if you could remove them, since you feel so strongly about PWInsider's lack of integrity. Mshake3 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Issue

I think that I can handle it. Don't cause disruptions, as that would damage my credibility my extension, and get you blocked. If you want to bow out, then feel free. This wouldn't be the first time I've had to fight this battle on my own, and I'm fairly proud of my track record. I've only lost once, and that was because a family emergency pulled me away from the computer for a few days. This is nothing new. I've already thought up a few other points in my head, so if nothing else I can stonewall them, but I expect them to see the wisdom in our views before this dispute is out. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took a day off from Wikipedia, and I'm done. This isn't an "I don't care anymore"; it's a "This isn't worth it." Sorry to let you down, but I don't want to mess with an RfC. I've been wanting to go semi-active for a while now, so I'm going to do so. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 :And since you feel so strongly about it, would you please remove all those WrestleView sources from [[One Night Stand (2005)]]? Many of them are cited directly from PWInsider, and are therefore, in your opinion, unreliable. [[User:Mshake3|Mshake3]] ([[User talk:Mshake3|talk]]) 15:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 ::What? I didn't ''accuse'' you of anything. I was ''asking'' if you could remove them, since you feel so strongly about PWInsider's lack of integrity. [[User:Mshake3|Mshake3]] ([[User talk:Mshake3|talk]]) 04:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
-:::Very well. However, in the future, I hope you comment on matters in which you know what you're talking about. [[User:Mshake3|Mshake3]] ([[User talk:Mshake3|talk]]) 02:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 == RE:Issue ==