User talk:Mshake3/Archives/2007/September

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I see that you already have one of these, but having two never hurt anybody. Your photos bring the wrestling articles to life. The articles are better because of your contributions. Nikki311 18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, do you have a picture of Candice Michelle hidden anywhere? Nikki311 20:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...there does seem to be a small problem with the rope. Thanks, though. It is better than not having anything at all. Nikki311 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

We remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You know better than to make comments like this one [[1]]. Bmg916^Speak 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

good point, I modified the statement above to reflect as such, but hopefully in the future I will have no need to either point it out or use an automated statement. You are a better editor than that comment reflects. Bmg916^Speak 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ARMAGEDDON!

look, that was a 2006 release which was released in early 2006, where are we now, in late 2007.

Have you checked the WWE's schedule, ARMAGEDDOn isnt on there.TrUcO9308 15:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then hes wrong, so why are you in this situationTrUcO9308 21:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Ric Flair

I already know, but nothing confirms a release yet, contract negotiations doesn't mean he has quit for sure. — Moe ε 05:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Mshake3/Gallery

Do you mind if your images are moved to the Wikimedia Commons like how Image:TheBoogeyman.JPG was? — Moe ε 08:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

From what I understand, a more descriptive name should be encouraged, but regardless of the title, your former logs will be recorded and preserved. I'm also willing to go through your gallery and the various articles in which your images are included and update them if they are renamed. — Moe ε 14:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A how-to to moving images to the Commons? The most I know of is Wikipedia:WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons that lists several tips and tools to moving them over to the other project. — Moe ε 14:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember 2006

Thanks for your comments on my Work in Progress in my sandbox. I've made further edits to rectify your comments. Is the first part of the background section better now? Thanks again, Davnel03 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks for your comments. I will include the points you mentioned there. Davnel03 06:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've finished the background and event. Any feedback here or on my talkpage, positive or negative will be helpful to help me improve the section. EDIT: I couldn't find any things to backup the date thing, so I didn't put it in, in case it could be OR. I've only got to do the aftermath now. Thanks, Davnel03 16:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

WOOT!!! :) Davnel03 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Randy Orton image

Go for it. But I'm pretty sure that the fansite took that image. But, got for it. I'm just trying to help the articles with images. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

SummerSlam 2001

Rather than reverting, let's discuss this. It wasn't a title unification match. Yes, both titles were on the line, but they were never unified into one title. The tag team titles were not unified untl Survivor Series 2001. The Light Heavyweight/Cruiserweight Titles were never officially unified since WWE just dropped the LH Title after X-Pac was injured (although they later combined the title lineages together, although this doesn't mean much since they also consider the WCW Light Heavyweight Title to be part of it). I know boxing considers titles unified if one person holds both, but you and I both know that in wrestling that unification is meant to be permanent (unless you also consider Kurt Angle and Jeff Jarret to be unified champions since they both held the IC and EU Titles at the same time). If you really think they should be listed as unification matches (even though nobody ever called them that), we could bring it up at WP:PW. TJ Spyke 04:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I never noticed since I hadn't looked at the page on title unification in a long time. IMO, they shouldn't be listed there since title unification in wrestling isn't the same as it is in boxing (they frequently mention titles being unified in boxing just because one man holds both, whereas in wrestling the term is only used when the titles are combined into one title). Looking back in history, wouldn't you agree that wrestling titles have generally only been considered unified when they were combined into one title (although they have on occasion de-unified the titles, but the unification's were always planned to be permanent)? Maybe the part on wrestling needs to be fixed at the title unification page. TJ Spyke 05:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The one good thing about being limited in the amount of reverts is that it's calmed me done some by realizing that getting into an edit war would mean i'm gone for good. If you find a reliable source that says the CW/LH match was a unification match (that one I think is possible, i'm sure the tag team title one wasn't), then I would have no objection to changing it. What some people i've dealt with before maybe didn't realize that I don't mind something being changed if they have a reliable source to back them up. TJ Spyke 05:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job on the pictures. As for me, the last time I went to a wrestling even (the July 2005 SmackDown where Eddier Guerrero revealed he was the father of Rey's sone) was before I got a digital camera. I don't have a scanner either. I will take pictures next time I go to a wrestling event though since I know how much better they are than fair use pics. TJ Spyke 05:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

NYR 2008

Why? WWE has not said anything about cancelling the 2008 event. There is also no consensus to remove mention by WP:PW. As of today, there is a New Year's Revolution 2008 PPV scheduled and we should mention it. If WWE cancels it, then we can remove it. TJ Spyke 04:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that rumor site only says it may not happen and they don't even provide a source for that info. If WWE doesn't give the location for it by October 1, then I will be willing to admit it may not happen. As of right now though, NYR 2008 is still happening and IMO should be listed on Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to get myself involved in this, but a source from third-party sites or magazines can't be 100% realiable (not even 25% realiable). I've learned from expirience that the one true realiable source is from WWE itself. Even a source from trusted sites like PWI can deliver false info. From the looks of it based on sources from WWE now, there isn't going to be a NYR. They might change it though, so don't say I'm wrong (or TJ, for that matter). MITB LS 06:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not necessarally blacklisting them. I'm saying that, in a situation like this, it would be best for a source from WWE, as it would be official. PWI is a third party site, which means it's operated by people outside the wrestling companies (operated by loyal fans, basically). I'm not saying that PWI releases false info, but as it looks now, the best source is from WWE.com (or their corporation site). Of course, WWE does intentionally release wrong info at times. But, I'm guessing that if there's info on NYR, WWE would release it first before PWI. Besides, there's plenty of time between now and the future; new info might come out that might resolve this issue. No need to get angry at me. We're cool, right? :) MITB LS 15:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My bad. It's just: I don't really feel that PWI is a reliable as somerhing from WWE (first of all, I haven't seen PWI, so I don't know what it's like). It may seem like PWI is a second source next to WWE. I'm not going to really try to change your opinion (I've tried enough persuading, and I'm sure TJ's done enough persuading too). If that's really what you think is reliable, then you can think that. I'm dropping the case now.

Have a nice day!

MITB LS 15:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting involved. I'm going to lay low for a while for a couple of reasons, but just know that when people say reliable source, they don't necessarily mean a source that has accurate information. They are talking about a source that passes WP:RS. Like I said, I'm not getting involved. Frankly, I don't care whether the site passes it or not since I'm not getting involved. I'm just trying to inform you of what is really being addressed. On Wikipedia, verifiability is more important than the truth. Peace, The Hybrid 22:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not getting involved. If it passes all of the criteria stated on that page, then it is a reliable source. I have no idea if it does or not. That is up for y'all to debate. The Hybrid 22:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

December to Dismember (2006)

Would you mind having another look over December to Dismember (2006), as the article is currently up for peer review. I'd be grateful for any thoughts you might have on the article, and that you leave your thoughts on the article here. Many thanks in advance, Davnel03 18:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. One major point though: References! You really need to include some. What I did is include the reference as soon as I seen it so that I didn't have to go back and find it later. Also, try and set it out, something like this:

• Report
  • Background
  • Event
  • Aftermath
• Results
• References

Looks good so far! Davnel03 06:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made a very minor change on the Lockdown article in your sandbox, see here. I hope you don't mind. I've hidden the event and aftermath section, when you need it, unhide it. Davnel03 15:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you find yourself getting stuck, you can also now look at this. :) Davnel03 14:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

TNA Slammiversary: RM

Since you're probably involved in this, I've put in a discussion regarding the movement of TNA Slammiversary. You can find it HERE. (Note: now with the RM, don't move the page back until this has been resolved.) MITB LS 02:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

This is because Xbox switch the pages back with the "TNA"-prefixes. MITB LS 02:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

TNA Lockdown (2007)

I see that you are trying to expand and improve the article TNA Lockdown (2007) in your Sandbox. I am also trying to improve the article in my Sandbox, and I was wondering if you'd like to work on this "project" together? Because I see we both have totally different content and I believe that if we work on this together we could create a great article. Cheers! --  Kip Smithers  00:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No doubt, considering you were sitting ringside. But as Davnel mentioned Reference are the biggest thing.  Kip Smithers  06:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)