User talk:Justa Punk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reply

Read the edit summaries next time. -- bulletproof 3:16 10:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read this edit summary? [1]-- bulletproof 3:16 10:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Uh yes it does. Check some other event articles. Its just standard WP:PW article format. Links are linked regardless of notability. -- bulletproof 3:16 10:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No. Only when listing results in event articles. -- bulletproof 3:16 10:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
True but either way thats how the results are formatted. -- bulletproof 3:16 10:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag Team Champs

Actually, it has been announced by WWE. Please see http://www.wwe.com/shows/raw/articles/5046390/tagtitlesswitch Thanks, --Naha|(talk) 00:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That's unusual! They normally wait until the following week's TV. Thanks Justa Punk 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] AWF

Hey man, why is it you can use WWE.com as a canonical source. But I cant use the OFFICIAL site of the AWF in the same fashion??? 210.193.228.114 failed to sign this message

Because WWE's notability has already been established. AWF's has not. !! Justa Punk !! 02:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Dude, Im from Sydney. I attend some of these shows. People travel from other states to see these shows. They are one of the top two promotions in this country. How can you question the notabilty? I dont see you questioning notability of other crap like 3PW...210.193.228.114 failed to sign this message

Don't make statements like this without third party evidence. At this point I have no reason to believe you. Original opinion is not good enough for Wikipedia. Please PROVE your statements are true with sources outside the promotion. !! Justa Punk !! 03:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I get someone to verify my claims? How bout this website: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/results/awf-au.html ??? Parradudes failed to sign this message

Results of shows is not an appropriate source. You need verifiable news reports to confirm everything that has been marked on the AWF article. I suggest again that you fully review the rules of notability at WP:NOT !! Justa Punk !! 08:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well if your such a friggin expert on Wikipedia why dont you read this. Parradudes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.193.228.114 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion for AWF

  • First, this is not the proper page to be discussing this issue. You should instead be using the AWF talk page.
  • 210.193.228.114, you need to read WP:OR. Wikipedia does not allow original research. In other words, the fact that you attended some of these shows is irrelevant. You need to cite credible sources, and statements need to be verifiable. Until then, you cannot include such information on the page.
  • Justa Punk, I think you went a bit heavy with the {{fact}} tags. It's terribly distracting from the article.

You may also want to contact the people at the Wikiproject for professional wrestling; they may be able to help you more on this article. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is to be continued on the AWF talk page

[edit] Yo

Hey Punk, this isnt in relation to the AWF. Just thought I'd say "no hard feelings" and that you are doing Wikipedia a service by sticking to its guidlines. PD 09:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply from Hybrid

I think you're wrong. The show scripted the results, so clearly they would be the most reliable source for the results. The Hybrid T/C 07:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We should be talking about this on the AWF talk page. !! Justa Punk !! 07:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AWF

While I agree that AWF is not notable, what you are suggesting is canvassing and is generally frowned on in Wikipedia. Also, I am coming at this article from an Australian perspective rather than a wrestling one. I know next to nothing about professional wrestling and would be unable to help.

Let the AfD take its course. The closing admin will look not just at the numbers for each side but the arguments put forward. If the decision is to keep the article, then we need to move on. If it hasn't improved in a month or two, then it can be listed again. I think you have done a good job of putting your case and there is little else you can do. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 09:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey

Hi Im Truco9311, or in reality Kevin, and I proposed to split the WWE Brand Extension article into the WWE Brand Extension and WWE Draft, and I need at least 7-10 signatures so I can start splitting them. If you may, join the discussion here--TrUcO9311 16:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WWE

I thought I would explain why I reverted your revert. The previous user didn't delete anything, they just moved it down to the section about the Wellness Policy, which is probably where it should be since the investigation is about the Wellness Policy. TJ Spyke 22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I thought he did! I checked through the diff tab and it looked like all he did was delete it. Thanks for the correction. !! Justa Punk !! 06:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

You may want to read WP:SPOILER and take into account that this trumps project "guidelines". –– Lid(Talk) 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indiscriminate collection of information does not apply here, in fact it's meaning is for articles that are about non-notable bands or your local KFC. Your argument that this is an encyclopedia and not a wrestling website is perfectly apt, and is why the information should be obstructed. –– Lid(Talk) 10:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually no, I do not. Spoilers are not US-centric and neither is this website. If information has aired it can no longer be considered a spoiler. –– Lid(Talk) 10:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Note: No policies seem to be being violated, certainly not PoV pushing or vandalism. I've replied at WPANI, but in all honesty, we're not here to save US users from spoilers! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] TV wrestling spoilers compromise

I suggest the following compromise: Create a section at the bottom of each page titled like: "Recent TV reports" or "Latest broadcast updates". Place a notice at the top of the page stating something like:

Got a spoiler you're itching to enter here?
If it's been broadcast somewhere (like Australia) but not everywhere (like the USA), please enter it at the bottom in the Recent TV reports section.
READERS, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ SPOILERS, DON'T READ THE BOTTOM SECTION, OK?
BUT, if it's a pre-broadcast spoiler, please don't enter it here at all, because it's not official, and it will be deleted as not verifiable.
Thanks for cooperating here with your fellow wrestling fans.

I don't know exactly where you want to solve the problem, so I styled this notice to match my notion of pro wrestling color use. You may be able to place this colorful notice at the top of the talk pages for instructional purposes. It's easy to make it less garish, and for article page use, it may be necessary to compress and style it to the italics of a typical top disambiguation notice. There may be other style guide issues, but here's a prototype idea from which to start negotiating. Paraphrased from politics, negotiation is the art of the possible.
I hope this helps. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 12:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is better I must say. In the interests of compromise - even though I still don't like it (and WWE.com is the key to official but that argument is already going around in circles) - this would be good enough. It will certainly stop the pre Australian broadcoast spoilers. What's written is good enough. The design could be worked on a bit (like a box for example) and add a distinctive logo (like an exclamation point or whatever) to attract attention. I'll leave that to you or someone else though - sorry to pass the buck but with the weekend coming my time is pretty short. !! Justa Punk !! 00:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Issue

I think that I can handle it. Don't cause disruptions, as that would damage my credibility my extension, and get you blocked. If you want to bow out, then feel free. This wouldn't be the first time I've had to fight this battle on my own, and I'm fairly proud of my track record. I've only lost once, and that was because a family emergency pulled me away from the computer for a few days. This is nothing new. I've already thought up a few other points in my head, so if nothing else I can stonewall them, but I expect them to see the wisdom in our views before this dispute is out. Cheers, The Hybrid T/C 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a day off from Wikipedia, and I'm done. This isn't an "I don't care anymore"; it's a "This isn't worth it." Sorry to let you down, but I don't want to mess with an RfC. I've been wanting to go semi-active for a while now, so I'm going to do so. Peace, The Hybrid T/C 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WM 23

RJ's a good guy; the people we were disputing with over spoilers can only hope and pray to be half the man he is someday, so I don't see a problem. I think that the issue is pretty much taken care of, honestly. If he asks me to I'll point him to it, but I bet he's already looked for and found it. If he wants he can start up a new discussion; that's no biggie; discussions are easy to handle. With the Notice board running, and WPT:PW booming as usual he has no shortage of places to turn for !voters, so I don't think this will end up being a big deal. Disputes where the two of us are involved are generally solved quickly, as both of us have witnessed the damage inflicted by long disputes, and work to end it in the shortest possible time span. Cheers :) The Hybrid T/C 05:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

[edit] Need some input from you on an unblock request

In late November, User:Wwerawrocks was blocked for edit-warring with others on the pro wrestling pages, you among them. It seems that just a few days ago he noticed he had been blocked and posted an unblock request. In declining it, I explained what he had been blocked for and that if he believed he was posting true information, the onus was on him to provide sources. He did come through with one that you had specifically reverted, an article claiming The Rock would have lost the belt if he'd been DQ'ed in that match.

I'm not part of the wrestling project, so, is this source reliable and/or accurate? If the latter, do we have a source saying otherwise? Since I've suggested I'd give him a second-chance unblock if he came through, I need to know. Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No it's not accurate. The truth of the matter (and this is what the user concerned was flatly refusing to accept) is that the match concerned was restarted (source - the actual pay per view itself) and is considered to be one match. The final result per the page concerned is correct. The user concerned is insisting that it was two seperate matches and they were not and never have been. Thank you for contacting me regarding this. Recommend the block be retained. !! Justa Punk !! 06:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, small correction. The source actually doesn't support the user's view of matters. Assumption on my part, I should have checked it first. !! Justa Punk !! 06:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OK

Thanks for the heads up on that, Punk. GetDumb 06:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] an idea I would like you to see

Hi my name is InfoLove. I noticed you had a lot of edits in the promotion list article and wanted to know if you where interested in an idea I ahd for said article. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_professional_wrestling_promotions for the suggestion (on the last entry). Tell me if you like it. FranK (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)