Larsonrick25
Welcome edit
|
August 2012 edit
Your recent editing history at Court Bauer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Both you and DigitalApe2000 have broken 3RR. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- Regarding your accusation on FloBo's talk page that the other user is engaged in sockpuppetry, if you have credible evidence, then please open an investigation at WP:SPI if you have not already done so. If you can identify an IP address or server being used as an open proxy, report it at WP:OPP. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)Mister Saint Laurent edit
Please take to WP:DRV, I think this needs wider discussion. GiantSnowman 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- In my view the speedy deletion was contrary to policy and any wider discussion should be at AFD rather than DRV. I have said this at the DRV. Thincat (talk) 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- So what is the next step? Seems like Mister Saint Laurent's wiki page ends up attacked by people that don't like his controversial views. If he wasn't notable, why would so many people even be concerned about the entry? It also makes wikipedia look bad when he's mentioned on so many other pages and yet his page vanishes. Between his work in MLW and ROH he's far more well known than many wrestlers with wiki articles. Larsonrick25 (talk) 02:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
The Return of Mister Saint Laurent edit
This article has been restored but has been sent to Articles for Deletion presumably to assess the notability of the subject, as demonstrated in the article.[1]
I hope you won't mind me giving some suggestions.
The situation is rather marginal and it is quite likely the article will end up being deleted. Rather than argue the case at AFD I suggest you improve the article right away. You provided a fair reference to his squabble with Guns n' Roses and I have strengthened this. What the article conspicuously fails to do is say what the squabble was about (some album tracks?), what happened and how it was resolved. This needs to be documented with reference to the various articles (and other stuff). I won't be doing this (I don't understand it and I am not too interested) so I expect you will have to do it yourself.
It is important you explain his notability for more than one thing. So you must establish he is a notable wrestler. All the article does is refer to web sites that mention him in passing. You must try and find something substantial about him as a wrestler, presumably in a wrestling magazine. A blog post is not good enough, a news web site might be OK, a published magazine better still. Write about this aspect referring to whatever sources you have found. How did he become a wrestler? What happened at his greatest fight? What is he doing now?
Once the article has been improved, and well before seven days are up, go the AfD and vote "keep" saying (briefly) how the article now better demonstrates notability and how earlier comments might not have been able to take this into account. If I think the article is encyclopedic I shall also vote "keep", otherwise I shall say nothing. Good luck (which you will need)! Thincat (talk) 20:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for the advice. Just spent several hours trying to improve the article to better explain the subject's notability. I hope now that others will clearly see that he is notable enough to be included here. Any further suggestions would be appreciated. Larsonrick25 (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's a whole lot better, well done. I hope you haven't wasted your time. If the article had been like this to begin with it would never have been considered for deletion. Now people have it in their sights, who knows? Maybe "no consensus" in which case it will be kept. Thincat (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)