User talk:RobJ1981
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] Armageddon
Okay. But Undertaker and Mr. Kennedy are in the bigger feud than Kane and MVP and Undertaker and Mr. Kennedy together are the two bigger stars than Kane and MVP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RYANonWIKIPEDIA (talk • contribs) 22:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Stables and Tag Teams
Try to avoid mass AFD's if possible. I have been involved in quite a few and nearly every time the result was to keep them all because of time to examine every article to see which articles are worth keeping. Try to make it as painless as possible and create seperate AFD's. semper fi — Moe 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:TJ Spyke
Want to try going back to WP:AN or WP:AN/I and discussing with more people? Maybe, we can get more input and a better community response. I agree, I see TJ reverting every person's edit for sometimes illogical reasons. He edits now to escalate tensions between other editors, such as yourself. Nishkid64 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Err...that's what I said. Want to make a new topic now? Try WP:AN/I first. Nishkid64 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No good deed should go unpunished
 |
The Original Barnstar | |
| As one of your colleagues in the assessment field, I know how easy it can be to overlook the substantial contributions made by assessments, and also know how difficult performing assessments can be. On that basis, I believe you are more than deserving of this barnstar for your extraordinary efforts in assessing articles for several projects, and your contributions to wikipedia in general. Your assessments, together with the Trivia Cleanup project you began, have greatly improved a number of our articles, and I believe that this recognition of your contributions is long past due. Badbilltucker 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) |
[edit] Stables and tag teams discussion
I'm starting two have doubts about splitting the tag teams from the stables. I'm thinking if we spilt those up, that we might get some confusion as they wouldn't be on the same page. I was thinking of actually splitting the article up into current tag teams and stables and former tag teams and stables. What do you think? semper fi — Moe 01:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Thanks, man. Clay4president 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wiki Accomodationism
Why so accomodating of vandals? I call out a really nasty vandal (check his log!) and you berate me for it. Whether or not you know it, Wikipedia's under increasing threat from vandals. Why do you want to be nice to those who are bound and determined to shut down this valiant effort? All it takes is a critical mass of people noticing that a lot of their articles of interest contain random vandalism and this site will die. Don't you care about that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyperionred (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
[edit] Re: Mark Meadows
I removed your sourcing tag from the Mark Meadows page. The source of the information is from personal knowledge of the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.222.245.190 (talk • contribs).
P.S. - please direct me to the guideline stating that personal knowledge is not an acceptable source for non-controversial biographical articles. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.222.245.190 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Re:TJ Spyke
Go to WP:RFC then. It's a good suggestion, and I apologize for not telling you to go there in the first place. Nishkid64 22:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: The Wizard (film)
Now, I appreciate what you're doing with the trivia cleanup thing, really. If you check the history and talk page of The Wizard (film), you'll note I've been keeping the trivia there trimmed down (it used to be a LOT worse). I think the size of the trivia section is fine on the page as it is, so I took the tag down. Every piece left is relevant to the movie and something else, or at least worth noting. If you feel a particular piece of trivia on the page isn't worthy of being there, please bring it up on the talk page for me. Don't just tag the article because you feel it's "too much". Thanks. --UsaSatsui 11:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] tag team
The rest have prods and Ric Flair and Roddy Piper doesnt have anything at the moment. Snitsky and Tomko can be deleted after tomorrow according to its prod --- Paulley
- Well i think if "The McMahons" was rewrote to associate the name with any pairing of the McMahon family, rather than just the team of Shane and Vince, then the article is worth keeping. i really hope that one day we can sort these articles out so that true tag teams only exist on here.. as in tag team wrestlers that have only had major notieriety as a team to the exstent that the need for the individual's article isnt required.. like we have done for the Shane Twins, or The Kartel -- Paulley
- Yea that was the main one i was thinking.. but im sure there have been other instances where the McMahon family have banded together Linda and Stephanie have feuded with Vince and Shane (then Linda, Stephanie and Shane have feuded with Vince)... but i think it would be more of an article concerning the McMahon family possible move it to "McMahon family" and rewrite the article as something other than a tag team page -- Paulley
[edit] Tag team and Stables
I was going to get it deleted after I spilt the page. Sorry I haven't been around much to help with that, it feels like I'm trying to do 15 things at once. Once all the non-notable tags and stables are deleted it should be easier to organize. semper fi — Moe 21:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Killers from Space
Hey Rob I've extended the article quite a bit since you rated it, adding an infobox. Don't you think it is more of a "start" than a "stub"?--Silverscreen 15:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Cool! Thanks for the reply. Believe me, there is a lot more to be said about Killers from Space!--Silverscreen 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A Wrinkle in Time (film)
Hi. I have to say I'm a little shocked that an unreferenced tag has been slapped on this stub, a mere two days after it came into existence. It doesn't even make any statements that can't be derived directly from watching the movie and reading the book (from the article on which this stub was just spun off). Given time I will quote L'Engle about the movie, and find some articles and books to cite, but I really think there's not much there yet to source! Karen | Talk | contribs 03:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- You replied: A Wrinkle in Time (film) needs a source that exists: I'm not doubting it exists, but articles on Wikipedia need sources. An official site or a page on Internet Movie Database (IMDB) will work. RobJ1981 05:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, the IMDB link probably didn't get copied over from the parent article when someone unceremoniously cut the film heading from the A Wrinkle in Time novel's article and pasted it into a new article. I will rectify this immediately. I also did a quick survey last night of online reviews and listings, but that will take me a bit more time. (Last night I was researching sources for something else, on Wikiquote, yet.) Thanks for clarifying! Karen | Talk | contribs 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to your comment
You wrote: "Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made". To counter, I would like to ask you not to add maintenance notices to pages without a thorough discussion on the validity of the notice. Your notices are literally trivial and add unnecessary clutter. Ericpaulson 03:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] scope of Novels Wiki Project
Hi, the scope of the Novels Wiki Project is fiction only. The Black Jacobins as such does not qualify. Errabee 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- The Novels WikiProject is a daughter of the Books WikiProject. I don't know if WP Books has any more daughters, but basically, the answer is yes, if it is not fiction, it is probably in scope of the WP Books project, not the Novels project. Errabee 07:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
 |
The article Barry Darsow, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. |
[edit] Re:Ongoing issue
Hmm...can you show me some comparisons? I just want to see the differences and similarities between the pages. Also, wouldn't it be reasonable that most of the article looks the same as the official website? The event hasn't occurred yet, and if there are no external resources available, then it would be reasonable if they looked a bit similar. Anyway, I need some website vs. article comparisons to make sure. Nishkid64 02:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really think that's a copyvio at all. I mean, if you guys could find some external sources that preview the match or detail it somehow, that would make it more dissimilar from the official pages. Anyway, it's just small sections, so it's no big worry. Copyright violations are really bad if it's like a large section (a few paragraphs, at least). But this is just some match titles, so that's not really something bad. Nishkid64 03:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UK promotions
Yea, i removed the events section from IPW:UK... and wrote about the more note worthy ones in the promotion's history section. ---- Paulley
