User talk:Hazardous Matt: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:55, 16 July 2010

Previously...on the last episode of
Hazardous Matt's talkpage

Archives

Template:Multicol

Template:Multicol-break

Inconsequential

Template:Multicol-end

Yes

Yes it was messy, I was just helping him. I'm sorry if I shouldnt've. I'll revert it if you want. Red Rooster 96 16:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you. Red Rooster 96 16:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt. You know the templetes about replieing and all that? I don't really understand their use. Could you explain it to me personally? Thanks. Red Rooster 96 20:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Yeah, my preferences section was screwed up. It didn't correct the format. I fixed it yesterday.--WillC 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, where you at? I haven't seen you around in forever.--WillC 10:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thats too bad. Yeah, there is alot of drama involved with WP:PW. I got use to it after a while. It makes things interesting. If dealing with drama will allow me to improve wikipedia, then so be it. Try simple pedia, it has very few articles and very few editors. I've been on there trying to improve it. About to open a wrestling project there and try to get it set up like on here. At the moment there are around possibly 4 editors total who work on wrestling related articles on there. What happened with Kalajan? Yeah he has a sock, forgot the name, but I will tell you he has a sock. Yeah I agree there is alot.--WillC 15:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can be more pacific? What you working on? Well the one on simple should make you love it again. Hopefully you'll return to the one on here one day. Would be nice to have another editor. I heard it sucked. It went off in a complete story that was completely wrong. That it got hardly anything right and was only an hour and 45 minutes. Jarrett bash? Oh I got to hear this. How is that going?--WillC 15:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Jarrett doesn't own and run TNA much anymore. Supposedly he sold his shares. Yeah Russo gets alot of shit. Hell all I hear today is fire Russo in TNA, but now that Jarrett is off the book and it is all Russo, Cornette, Borash, and Conway TNA has been really good. I wish they would have went more in depth though. No Invasion, etc. Near 30 years summed up in 1 hour 45 minutes is sad.--WillC 06:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I've ever been an ass to you, mention your grievance at Wikipedia:Editor review/Wrestlinglover. Good bye and have a glorious day (I could really be a damn good advertiser or whatever the technical term is).--WillC 11:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well considering it is me and TJ as the only main active editors on that section in a see of ips and newbies that know at least some of the rules, I could see how people say I own articles. I've got use to the whines on me. Might as well see what they all are first. If you want to comment you can. No big deal. I left a comment on alot of user's talk pages.--WillC 14:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, fastest convorsation in which I've never said a word in. I checked that last night. Curtis is still young and has a long way to go.--WillC 21:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Hey! how have you been? I don't see you around much anymore.--WillC 00:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, too bad. Yeah, I saw that episode. Was pretty good imo.--WillC 04:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It varies, usually I just vote then ignore it.--WillC 03:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to unwatchlist the debate. That way it shouldn't be a problem.--WillC 03:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judgment Day

The event in question is not Judgment Day. The event in question is the event that follows it which is currently listed on WWE.COM as Extreme Rules. I tried to update the pay per view chronology and the One Night Stand (the event's former name) page, but the Nazis in the "pro wrestling community" won't let me change it stating that WWE.com's pay per view schedule is not a reliable source. Can you please explain to me how the company's official website's schedule is not a reliable source. I am begining to get very frustrated by this website that is supposedly open for everyone. I try to present official, factual, sourced information and it keeps getting shot down by the same two or three people who seem to think they have ultimate control over all things pro wrestling. If a change doesn't reflect what THEY want the article to say (whether it is factual or not), they delete it.Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rankor

I'm rocking him out. Thanks Tony2Times (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wednesday Comics

No problem - the important thing is to pitch in if you see there is something that needs doing (I've learned form experience you can never wait for someone else to do it ;) ). Someone will often drop by to pick up any typos or tighten up the wording (brevity is always best, so if there is a way to impart the information with less words then go for that). (Emperor (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Cyberfrog

Yes that looks pretty solid - the important thing is to have real world context and you have plenty of that. The plot looks a little lengthy and some of the plot subsections might need nesting (I assume the ones after "Harris Comics" refer to stories published at Harris and so should be made with four ==== to make them nest under that header.

I would like to see a bit more on the notability, reviews would be good for this or coverage in other publications, not just interviews. However, the date would suggest you are going to be lucky to find much online from the time so that'd be one to aim for.

Some more links for tertiary sources (so I wouldn't footnote them but add them to a reference sections separate from the footnote ones):

Cyberfrog at the Grand Comics Database
Cyberfrog at the Comic Book DB (archived from the original)
Cyberfrog: 3rd Anniversary Special at the Grand Comics Database
CyberFrog: 3rd Anniversary Special at the Comic Book DB (archived from the original)
Cyberfrog Vs. Creed at the Grand Comics Database
Cyberfrog Vs. Creed at the Comic Book DB (archived from the original)
Cyberfrog: Reservoir Frog at the Comic Book DB (archived from the original)

So I'd suggest formatting some of those links with {{cite web}} (for sites like Newsarama, Comics Bulletin use the publisher field), move it into the mainspace and add an image. Perhaps leave a note on the talk page pointing out areas that need more work (like digging out reviews, etc.) but it is a good start. (Emperor (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

UX pics

Yes, very much so! They aren't in the greatest quality but that doesn't matter. They could both go in the main article and MCMG's. You load them up to commons and I'll be sure to use them when I start my expansion of UX soon. Thanks--WillC 01:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks alot.--WillC 03:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I hate to see you go man. You've been very helpful, but I can agree. I've grown tired on Pedia in general, do to certain editors. Just not been giving a shit at all for a week now. So I understand the reasoning. Sad to see you go, one less sane editor around here with only a handful left to begin with.--WillC 23:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

"Okay, let's try it this way -- If the article is Art Student Scam, why go on and on about these individuals? The focus of the article should be on the practice itself, and not give undue weight to these individuals. If these individuals are so notable, wouldn't they require a separate article detailing the ordeal surrounding them?"

They do require a separate article. The part about guys on the street in china selling fake art that they say is real is almost unnoteable and was added to sabotage the original point about israeli spying. Users deliberately colluded to change the topic from israeli "art student" spying to "art student scam" becaused they were offended that israel was suspected of spying.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Your comments have allowed me to infer a direction you may intend to steer the discussion."

I do not intend to steer the discussion off topic. This is evidence is dismissed by user:gilisa that "art student spying" is not an urban myth.

At the very least, watch most of part 1 and part 4 from 3:00-4:34, however you will still miss out on important evidence by not watching the entire four part special.

re-add 4 part fox news special, total time 20 minutes

Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fm0_7jVqcE&feature=related

Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhAEjSQghj8&NR=1

Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENwze5owq4w&NR=1

Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwckJoP7-wg&feature=related Preciseaccuracy (talk) 12:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]