Talk:Xtreme Pro Wrestling

I want to suggest that this piece of text - "Soon, the "Enterprise" would be joined by The Beast, who aligned himself with the faction after defeating Supreme for the XPW King of the Deathmatch Championship." - be removed from the article as no wrestler called The Beast ever joined the Enterprise or even worked for XPW. The XPW KOTD title history page even makes it clear that Supreme didn't lose the title to anyone called The Beast. Kid Banzai 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Messiah seems to be an important figure in XPW's history, but there's no professional wrestling page for him on Wikipedia. Is this an accidental oversight or intentional because he's a relatively minor figure otherwise? (Not withstanding other minor figures in other promotions like WWE's Koko B. Ware have entries.) BronzeWarrior 09:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody has commented on this, I went ahead and created a page for William Welch b.k.a. The Messiah myself. BronzeWarrior 08:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Bleeding was only half the job (final time)

Please explain yourself. As of last week, you seemed to understand and accept that you cannot have a section on this page devoted to your non-existant "book". But as you have attempted to add the content back, it appears you never agreed. Its time for you to explain yourself.

Unfortunate phrasing

Am I the only person to think it odd that, having described the manner in which one of the owners of this promotion had his thumb cut off with a pair of shears, the author of the article goes on to discuss all the "finger pointing" that ensued? 81.153.63.66 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

== Re: Confusion ~~

The owner of the promotion didn't have a thumb cut off; one of its former wrestlers did.JB196 22:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bleeding was only half the battle

The excessive self-promotional content related to these web-pages has been removed. As the author has created a seperate page on Wikipedia to describe his "work", there is no need for excessive coverage of it on the XPW page. Simply link to the article from here.

Bleeding was half the battle (again)

There are now two pages that cover the book. XPW: Bleeding Was Only HALF Of The Job and Bleeding Was Only HALF Of The Job. The second one is shortly to be up for AFD. The first one should not exist at all.

The same reasoning that is driving the page to AFD also will apply to the content here. I'm personally willing to tolerate something on this page under the following conditions:

• Its short
• Its not a standalone section
• It describes what exists today and doesn't talk about what might be done (i.e. a book) in the future.
• Its not used as if it were a published book to defend a POV.

I didn't make the XPW: Bleeding Was Only HALF Of The Job page, Paulley did. You can put it up for deletion if you want. I am fine with it not being a standalone section--it can go under "The Memory Remains."JB196 16:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I doesnt need to be in this article... i just want it out of here if its in its own i can be edited, deleted, or whatever with out effecting the history of this one... its a fan book when and if it gets published is of no concern to me but it does not belong in the XPW article. --- Paulley

It is notable enough to be at least briefly mentioned in the XPW article under "The Memory Remains" section. If you are trying to deny that then we do have a problem here.JB196 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

i just think its better for it to have its own article being that it is a seperate thing its not like it was made by the ppl that made xpw.. i know its your thing but it isnt a part of the promotion or its history but if it was only a small one lined reference to it i wouldnt object... just not a whole section like it was before. --- Paulley

Actually Kevin Kleinrock who was the head of XPW is directly involved in the project so thats not the case.JB196 20:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Bleeding was half the battle (third time)

The same reasoning that is leading to your article getting AFDed excludes you putting the same material on this page. 1) You can't add content about your intention to write a book 2) You don't deserve your own section. 3) No self-promotion. All that is required is one external link to your "work" and post-edits thats what you have.

Well this is where we're going to have to disagree. Whenever anybody mentions XPW on the Internet these days, "Bleeding Was Only Half the Job" comes up. It is associated with the company directly in that the staff (Kevin Kleinrock, GQ Money, etc.) are involved. It is warranted to have a sub-section in this entry in the production of the trailers. So the argument can be made that it is being produced by the former-staff members of the company, in which case it deserve a separate section, or at least a sub-section to the "The Memory Remains" section. This is not something that you will get me to agree to remove without a lot of debate because I feel very strongly about it. And also, please review the history of the document before stating that I am the one who am putting the information into the article. Parsonburg was the one who first put the Bleeding Was Only Half the Job sectioninto this article. It was his decision. JB196 22:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read: - You can't add content about your intention to write a book - You don't deserve an entire section because as has been explained to you repeatedly, your content fails any number of criteria for inclusion - The best you can expect is a LINK to your content in an external links section. And at this point, you should be glad to have that at this point.

So what are we to do?

So what are we to do about the inclusion of information on Bleeding Was Only Half the Job in this article?JB196 23:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Your going to accept one link in the new external links section. Thats the proper place for this sort of content. The issue has been decided and the consensus was against you. 64.12.116.10 23:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

"The issue has been decided and the consensus was against you."

No, it wasn't against me. It was against a separate article.JB196 23:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PS, I am not going to get into a revert war with you, but there is going to have to be some discussion about this matter because there is a clear disagreement that has not been settled. The issue that nobody seems to want to confront here is that it is a pretty steep assertion to argue a book by the bosses of a world-famous company about their experience running said company is not notable enough to be mentioned in a Wikipedia article. (and for good reason)JB196 23:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

1) There is no book

2) The author (you) is not the boss of a world famous company

3) The Notibility of your work has been discussed during the deletion process. You made your argument. You lost.

I don't know what else there is to dicuss. 64.12.116.10 23:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When I referenced the "bosses of a world-famous company," I was obviously referring to Kevin Kleinrock, VP of Operations of XPW, Talent Relations Coordinator Josh Lazie, among others--not myself.

Those people did not write the book. Your words are "book by the bosses". This book is no way "by the bosses" of XPW. (ex-64.12.116.10)

"The Notibility of your work has been discussed during the deletion process. You made your argument. You lost" - You don't seem to understand the context of an afD discussion very well; read my previous posts more carefully please.

It doesn't matter whether or not there is a book. Kevin Kleinrock has expounded upon his role and challenges running XPW in articles already printed. His comments about XPW are relevent to this article as he was the head of the company.

One of the fundamentals of Wikipedia which you don't seem to have a good grasp on is WP:AGF. If we were all out to harm Wikipedia then Wikipedia could not exist. I am simply trying to make sure that credit is achknowledged where credit is due. JB196 23:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This has all been explained to you in the deletion discussion for your page. You cannot write about your intention to write a book. (ex-64.12.116.10)

it shouldnt be in this article; a reference and and a link, yes... a stand alone section, NO --- Paulley 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)... it has a page leave it alone and stop trying to put it in this article --- Paulley 23:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I also believe the material is not appropriate for the page. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so any statements about what might happen in the future should immediately be removed. Who has endorsed what also strikes me as unencyclopedic. Given the clear consensus for deletion in the AfD, I think the most that's appropriate here is an external link. And even there, per WP:VAIN and WP:AUTO, the insertion of that link should come from some uninvolved subject matter expert. William Pietri 01:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

William, I'm not sure if you got a chance to check out my post at the bottom of this page so if not, just giving you a heads up that it is there.

I strongly disagree with the argument that anything "about what might happen in the future immediately be removed." Simply type in "forthcoming" in the search box on Wikipedia and 4,047 results pop up. There are tons and tons and tons and tons and tons of entries on Wikipedia about forthcoming projects. The Crystal Ball part of What Wikipedia is Not does not apply to works of art but rather to events (i.e. the 2008 presidential election) and history (see the "Weapons to be Used in World War III" example in What Wikipedia is Not). Just because it is forthcoming doesn't mean it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia.

"Given the clear consensus for deletion in the AfD, I think the most that's appropriate here is an external link."

For my response to this see my post below. Thanks.JB196 01:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm fine with removal of the "The Memory Remains" section. The title seems a little florid for an encyclopedia, and the opening sentence is a crystal ball statement. I think the mention of the DVD rights could work as a one-sentence bit at the end of the previous paragraph. --William Pietri 14:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, well we need to get some feedback from other members as to whether they think "The Memory Remains" section should exist. Whether the section should contain any mention of Bleeding Was Only HALF the Job is an entirely different story. The question is now is whether "The Memory Remains" section should be kept in the article or not. To clarify, I was not saying that I think that "The Memory Remains" section should be removed; I was using the reference as an if-then expression. So what is the next step?JB196 18:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm staying out of editing this article. If you and Paulley would like a third (or really, fourth) opinion, WP:3O is a place to start. William Pietri 18:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think first we should probably take it up with the readers of the XPW article themselves, like on this talk page or something.JB196 18:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

reverted edits

There were a large number of edits to the page during the edit war. Some of these were harmless (puncuation). Others were major changes to sections of the page. I reverted the whole page back to a neutral point. I'm sure that everyone can understand the reasons for this. The content/changes need to be discussed and seperated from the punctuation and capalitization changes made at the same time. 205.188.117.6 00:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to list every single DVD ever released by XPW. Nor is there a need to list every ECW wrestler who wrestled for XPW. Wikipedia is not for lists. Do you disagree with this? What were "major changes"? As I see it, there were no "major changes." I do agree with you that the "content/changes need to be discussed and seperated from the punctuation and capalitization changes made at the same time."JB196 00:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You removed about half the DVD information without any particular pattern or reasoning that I could figure out. Removing information at random from sections that are not large to begin with seems pointless.

The list of ECW wrestlers is a short list added for informational purposes to the page. I don't agree with removing it. You made a large number of small changes to paragraphs in the article which I don't agree with and need to be discussed in a reasonable way. There were too many changes to revert point by point. You should not be making massive changes to the page in the middle of an edit war where you are personally involved.

(cur) (last) 00:42, 28 June 2006 JB196 (Talk | contribs) (rv. Please discuss what? I'm giving you a chance to discuss it on the talk page and you won't respond to me. I am tired of people thinking they can just revert constructive changes to an article.)

Please explain. I created this section for discussion myself. If you check the history, your claims that I have not discussed it are clearly false.

Again, why do you believe a list of every single DVD XPW ever released should be included? Wikipedia is not for lists.

"The list of ECW wrestlers is a short list added for informational purposes to the page. I don't agree with removing it. You made a large number of small changes to paragraphs in the article which I don't agree with and need to be discussed in a reasonable way. There were too many changes to revert point by point."

They also used Crowbar, Candido, Simon Diamond, Joey Matthews, Raven, Chris Hamrick, also wrestled. That's almost 15 wrestlers. It is not practical to list every single former-ECW wrestler who wrestled for XPW during the Philly run.

You should not be making massive changes to the page in the middle of an edit war where you are personally involved.

This doesn't hold ground. I make constructive edits to this article everyday. Just because today happens to fall on a day where there is an afD going on which I am involved in doesn't mean that I should not make changes.JB196 00:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The focus has been lost here. The fact of the matter is that there is a section called "The Memory Remains" to explain how XPW continues to live on in various ways. Whether or not the retrospective is going to be published is not relevent; the fact is that BWOHTJ is very much associated with XPW whenever "XPW" is mentioned on a wrestling message board. It deserves to be listed. As I said, this is not something that I am going to give up easily because I feel very strongly about it. If you believe that it doesn't belong, then the "Memory Remains" section shouldn't belong either.JB196 02:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine. "The Memory Remains" has been changed to reflect that the only valid content associated with it is information about DVDs. As for the rest, you have lost on every point with regard to what your trying to claim. You cannot add the material because it fails vanity and crystal ball among other things. As many, many people have told you, you have to get the book published before you can do anything more than link to it.

To 168.127.0.51 - I am fine with "The Memory Remains" title being changed. However, it has been there for a long time and just because you think the title should be changed isn't sufficient enough. If we can get a discussion going on the talk page and get a concensus about changing the title to something about the DVDs/Video Rights, then that's fine.

I also find it telling, sir, that you say "By putting this section back you have demonstrated bad faith and unacceptable behavior," yet you are the one who was blocked for vandalizing this very page, and the MOMENT that your block expired, you went right back to removing information from it. So who's really "[demonstrating] bad faith and unacceptable behavior?" JB196 16:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

JB you are a clown and a troll and if you are gonna keep putting those bullshit tags on the DVDVR article then one belongs on this article. Your shitty fuckign documentary that has been in the works FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS IS NOT A SIGNIFICANT PART OF XPW HISTORY. I MOVE THIS GETS DELETED NOW.KroneMeltzer 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. That doesn't demonstrate civilty. I understand you find his behavior provocative, but that's when you should most clearly display good etiquette. William Pietri 19:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion on this section. Hopefully that will add light and reduce heat. William Pietri 19:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That is OK although I am not sure that the Third Opinion option applies here because on that page it says "List a controversy involving only two editors." and the dispute is here involved more than two editors.JB196 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

JB196 20:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC) I agree it wasn't quite appropriate, but I thought that was better than putting this up for an RfC, which seems like the next step. William Pietri 20:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see, thanks for clarifying. As I have said I personally think the next step would be to ask for opinions from the members of WikiProject Professional Wrestling.....and even before we take any next step, shouldn't we hammer out exactly what the issue is? This dispute has developed a life of its own; the issue as I see it includes questions such as "Should there be a section called 'The Memory Remains'"? I am just hesitant to go to rfc when those engaged in the dispute seem to have agreed upon what the dispute actually is. (I hope that makes some sense, I know it sounds confusing.) Also, William, you previously said that it is not right for somebody who is directly involved in a specific project (in this case myself) to promote said project on Wikipedia, and that if somebody else feels it is worthy of being mentioned on Wikipedia then they will include it themselves. Well, Parsonburg - a user with a VERY positive history of contributions to Wikipedia (and one of the few users who have made positive contributions to Wikipedia who are involved in this discussion--with the exception of myself and yourself, most of the people engaged in this edit dispute seem to be anonymous users who have many contributions that are blatant vandalism) - was the one who added the description of Bleeding Was Only Half the Job to this page in the first place. Is that not enough to warrant its inclusion?

- JB196 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only real issue is whether the text that was deleted in an AfD should be added back to this article. The concerns from that AfD include failure to meet WP:WEB, WP:NOR, WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:V, WP:VAIN, and WP:NN. The talk page concerns add WP:NOT a soapbox to that. One and a half of those only apply to full articles, but the rest are pertinent. As I mention on my talk page, Parsonsburg has less than 150 edits, and only added one now-removed sentence to a section where you were the first to mention your work. My opinion matches the third opinion below and the implied judgement of the AfD: the material does not belong in Wikipedia. William Pietri 23:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"As far as I can tell, the only real issue is whether the text that was deleted in an AfD should be added back to this article." - Forgive me but please be more clear on what you mean here. I am not clear what you mean.

"The concerns from that AfD include failure to meet WP:WEB, WP:NOR, WP:NOT a crystal ball, WP:V, WP:VAIN, and WP:NN. The talk page concerns add WP:NOT a soapbox to that." - Keep in mind that many of the "users" who expressed such "concerns" were Wikipedia vandals so really the list of "concerns" expressed is actually shorther than this six-part list.JB196 23:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. As to the first question, here's the issue I see: An article was deleted via AfD; the text of that article was added back to this article despite the concerns expressed. As to the concerns, all of those concerns were mentioned by perfectly reputable users, namely Wickethewok, DaveG12345, and Coredesat. The less informed opinions that you refer to were less salient, so I left them out of my summary. Any other questions? William Pietri 00:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I dispute the alligation that all of those who made comments minus account are vandals. Their comments in the AFD process should not count for much, but going further than that and making the accusation that they are vandals is wrong. 168.127.0.51 17:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Third opinion

A request for a third opinion has been requested by someone involved with the article. Based on what I have read here, and because WP:NOT a crystal ball, I don't think the section should be included. Hope I helped. —Xyrael _{/ 20:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)}

Rivalry with ECW section

There is an ongoing dispute with regard to this section. My views are:

• The section must state that the rivalry was one-sided unless facts can be produced to show it was otherwise.
• The section must attribute statements by former XPW officials to former XPW officials rather than as facts.
• Its improper to use "Bleeding was only HALF the job" as a reference because 1) its being used by the author to support his own statements and is thus original research. 2) The problems found in the AFD with the material as a notiable source. 168.127.0.51 17:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the rivalry, I think you can only say it's one-sided if you find a reliable source that says that. If you only have a source that A sees B as a rival and no source that B sees A as a rival, then I think you should just say that A sees B as a rival and cite the source. Alternatively, if you have a source saying that B doesn't see A as a rival, I think that's also fairly called one-sided. William Pietri 17:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I call the rivalry one-sided because I don't remember ECW ever acnowledging XPW or being a rival to them. There were lots of things said on XPW shows and the incident where XPW wrestlers showed up at an ECW show, but I don't remember ECW ever countering any of that stuff in the way I would expect a "rival" to. I guess I would be willing to go further and say that there was no rivalry. Only a set of incidents. 168.127.0.51 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but here we have to write things that can be verified through reliable sources, hopefully citing them as we go. Just writing from our own memories is original research and, alas, not allowed. William Pietri 13:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ECW sued XPW not once but twice.JB196 23:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY disagree with your third statement, 168.127.0.51. "Strongly" actually doesn't even fully convey my disagreement. DeclarationOfIndependents.net is considered a verifiable site by Wikipedia; it is sourced as a reference in many different pages. It is not relevent whether you think the Bleeding Was Only HALF the Job retrospective is a reputable source or not. By trying to argue whether or not it is or isn't a reputable source, you are letting your personal bias - meaning your views on it - get in the way of making an honest decision. What matters is that DOI is considered reputable by Wikipedia (at least as I see it), and being that it has been printed on DOI, it is a part of the DOI web site. As I see it, your arguing that the retrospective is not a reputable source is simply taking a bias against an author because you don't like the author or don't agree with him. If you have an issue with DOI being used as a source then that is a different discussion. FACT THAT CAN'T BE DENIED: Dave Meltzer - the single most credible wrestling journalist alive - has cited DOI on more than one occasion as being a source for information he has printed. It fair to cite DOI as a reference.

Your trying to get around the problems with bleeding was only half the job by attempting to credit it to the site that it appears on. The problems with that logic have been repeatedly explained to you. The argument you really need to address is that your over the line into original research by citing yourself and your own work to support a claim you want to make in the article. 168.127.0.51 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Reread what I wrote again if you need to.JB196 21:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong and you are not Wikipedia. I have read over and over again what you have said. Many people over a long period of time have explained to you why you are wrong. There is nothing more to say. 168.127.0.51 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the "rivalry wording," just forget it. I am fully willing to use another word than "rivalry." Honestly, I think that is a minor problem in the long run as we have other issues to deal with. Just because you personally don't think I am a reputable source doesn't mean that is how Wikipedia policy sees the situation; what matters is if it was printed on a reputable site. What, are we going to dissect every article on Wikipedia and say that every article printed on CNN.com is a verifiable source unless its author was "Joe Blow"? That's ridiculous and I will not stand for Wikipedia to be demeaned in that manner.

There were two problems 1) Original Research and 2) The problems with BWOHTJ (your work) as a source that were discussed during the afd process. You have not addressed (1) ever. Your response to (2) represents a misunderstanding of the consensus that was reached on Wikipedia on your "work". As far as I'm concerned your current text is acceptable and there is nothing more to discuss. 168.127.0.51 21:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have decided, at least for the timebeing, to remove that entire sentence and just make the section about the HeatWave incident to hopefully avoid further disagreements. JB196 17:36, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 168.127.0.51, but I am not going to engage in a silly argument with you. I have responded to argument after argument after argument thrown at me and yet my arguments have been achknowledged few and far between. I have thoroughly explained my position on the matter and how it corresponds to Wikipedia policy; if you don't wish to retain an open mind while reading the explanation then that is not my problem. As far as 1., it's not "original research" if it has been printed on a reputable site.JB196 21:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. As long as it doesn't come back. 168.127.0.51 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was recently watching some of their old matches, and I was wondering why Kriss Klos kept on saying "Who the hell are you!?".

---

Calling XPW the premier hardcore wrestling promotion in the USA between 99 and 2002 is way wide of the mark. Do the initials ECW mean anything at all?

Um, sure ECW initials mean something, but they don't mean hardcore wrestling, and least not entirely. Does the name Chris Benoit, Rey Mysterio Jr, Dean Malenko, Eddie Guerrerro, Chris Jericho.... I could go on and on and on mean anything to ya? ECW was more then hardcore wrestling, it was the innovator of everything we see on TV today. Not taking away anything from XPW, because it was great. But it was almost EXCLUSIVELY hardcore garbage wrestling. ECW wasn't.

Anon IP 81's edit

Reverted this clearly bad faith edit. Considering he has been on an extremely heated debate with me for the better part of this week, reverting one of my edits is one of the worst ideas. I am 110% warranted in putting the link back in, and for no other reason than that this user's intentions are tremendously questionable given the circumstances. Respectfully, Booyaka...BooyakaDell 02:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly WP:AGF. Secondly, this action is justified by several other guidelines and/or policies.

Reliable sources [1]

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

When a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

The article is original research published on a wrestling fan site, and no independent fact-checking will have taken place. The author most certainly does not meet either of the criteria in the second paragraph. Therefore it is not acceptable as a reliable source.

External links [2]

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it ::becomes a Featured article.
2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.
3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
6. Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content.
7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser.
8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.
9. Links to search engine results pages.
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

I've put the most indisputable reason in bold, others may apply but that would be a matter of opinion. My edit is fully justified by Wikipedia guidelines, the inclusion of the link is most certainly not. 81.155.178.248 10:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, your bolded statement is nothing more than an assumption. DOI is considered a reputable source by the Wrestling Observer Newsletter.

Secondly, it says at Wikipedia: List of guidelines that "Unlike policies, guidelines are usually more flexible and more likely to have exceptions and could be changed and improved more easily." It is a guideline, not a rule.

Thirdly, your edit was in bad faith, and it is in NO way a violation of WP:AGF to say that it was in bad faith given your past history with me, my edits, and the accusation of my being a sockpuppet.

Fourthly, if my reversion was based on a person vendetta of any sort, I would not have said in my edit summary "Somebody else is welcome to remove it" (that somebody else does not include Curse of Fenric).

Fifthly, and no I am not going to waste my time looking for it because it could be anywhere on Wikipedia, there IS (or at least used to be as of about six months ago) some rule on Wikipedia that for subjectrs with multiple fan sites, a fan site is appropriate to be listed in the External links. If not as a source, it suffices as a fan site, as I say here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.155.178.248&diff=prev&oldid=94432922 . Perhaps an editor with more experience on Wikipedia than myself will know what I am talking about and be of help.

Fourthly, please do not edit war, especially with people you are in a heated debate with.

I am entirely justified in my reverting. You (anon Ip 81) aren't.BooyakaDell 14:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have clearly shown above, my removal of the link is fully permitted by Wikipedia guidelines therefore any accusations of bad faith lack merit. DOI is not considering a reputable source by Dave Meltzer/The Wrestling Observer, that is an unsubstantiated claim. Even if one piece of information from DOI was printed in WO, that does not give you carte blanche to claim every single piece of information on DOI is correct, especially when it is original research. The content of DOI that you are linking to is original research, Wikipedia policy on original research is quite clear. The site contains unverifiable research, and should not be linked to. If you wish to re-insert the link, I suggest you seek approval from an administrator. 81.155.178.248 14:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it is not my obligation to acquire admin approval of the link, given that a multi-person consensus was reached on this very page for its inclusion. It is YOUR responsibility to acquire not just admin approval of removing the link, but administrator CONCENSUS of removing the link. Anything short will simply be interpreted as your refusal to sufficiently respond to the consensus which was previously reached. Anything short will also be interpreted as your edit warring with a person whom you have a highly contentious history with. Just because an editor (yourself) with a clear motive for disagreeing with the user in question (myself) doesn’t agree with the link’s inclusion doesn’t mean he has the right to remove it. You are edit warring with somebody who not only do you have a highly contentious history with but who was simply reverting a removal of an external link, and the person who removed it in the first place has no AGREED upon its inclusion (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BooyakaDell&diff=94347956&oldid=94304723).

Secondly, it is also not in violation of Wikipedia policy or WP:3RR for me to continue reverting your edit, given that your motives have been proven to not coincide with what you are saying; therefore I will continue to revert you on sight.

Thirdly, unless you respond to the points made in this and my previous post, your edits will have gone from edit warring to vandalism at which point your actions will be reported, given that you are not warranted in doing what you are doing.

Fourthly, you have five other points to address, plus the three new points made in this edit. That makes eight. Plus you have to prove that the your reversion is even justified in the first place.

Do not edit war with users who you have a highly contentious history with. This will probably be my last edit on Wikipedia for anywhere from the next five hours to two days. Rest assured that when I return, I will continue to revert you on sight and seek a block on you if you continue to edit warBooyakaDell 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the inclusion of the link that I can see. Guidelines are flexible, but are not to be completely ignored as you see fit. You have been reported for violating 3RR, my edit is clearly not vandalism. My edit fully falls under Wikipedia guidelines, and is not vandalism. Your claim of "edit warring" is disingenuous, given that you are equally as guilty yourself. 81.155.178.248 16:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Lethaniol/BooyakaDell - I have removed reference - DO NOT PUT IT BACK AS OF YET Lethaniol 16:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/BooyakaDell&curid=8407325&diff=94598554&oldid=94598495 where anon IP 81 admits to neglecting to address my EIGHT points on this very page, and brushes them off as "not holding water." Anybody is welcome to judge for themself if these eight points hold water (actually their were 11 but he addressed three...not that he ever disproved three but he addressed them).BooyakaDell 23:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was nothing to address. Lots of flim-flam and bluster, but no Wikipedia policies or guidelines were cited. Do you really want me to provide diffs for all the points you ignore? 217.44.10.183 23:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

request for edit

{{Editprotected}}

• Request for unprotection - the Xtreme Pro Wrestling promotion will be running a reunion show this July, and have launched a new website. I believe this information should be added to the article. TheNewMinistry 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

To request unprotection, please go to WP:RFPP or contact the admin who protected the page. Until then, no significant additions to the article should be made. The protection seems to be because of inappropriate external links, which makes me particularly hesitant to add additional external links. CMummert · talk 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

XPW Reunion Show

There are apparently plans in place to run an XPW reunion show. More information can be found at PWInsider.com and the apparent official website is TheXPW.comShouldn't this be added to the XPW article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mushemush (talk • contribs) 00:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes it should be added. The protection should be lifted off the page... or, at least, put a few of us (including myself) solely in charge of editing/maintaining the XPW entry. - Parsonsburg

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xtreme Pro Wrestling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120318160408/http://www.indywrestlingnews.com/database/events_list.php?o=52 to http://www.indywrestlingnews.com/database/events_list.php?o=52

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)