User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Your GA nomination of Money in the Bank (2011)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Money in the Bank (2011) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wrestlinglover -- Wrestlinglover (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank GA

Alright, I'm about half-way through the article so far. I've noticed several issues. I hope you don't take offense to any of my comments. So far you've done pretty much exactly like I did when I started writing events. I have left some comments and if you question any of my proposed comments just ask and I'll explain my reasoning. The main issue I have seen is the style of writing. Like many before you've written the article in more of an advertisement form than an encyclopedic form. Stick to the main issue, don't get lost in the fluff. All that is really needed is the reason behind the match, when it was announced, and any stipulations. The rest is just fluff.--WillC 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a long way to go before it is GA level but I don't plan to fail the article. Just get the fixes done and I'll read it again later. It needs alot of work but you have really done everything I did with Lockdown (2008) when I started. Certainly in the event sections. Really in-depth there and I can tell why.--WillC 10:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Take your time, I'm in no rush. I'll pass or fail the article either when the stuff is all taken care of and I feel it meets the criteria or the changes can't be made any time soon. You've got plenty of time. I'll consult you before I ever do anything. I'll look at the article once you have made your edits.--WillC 11:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I saw. It still needs more work. I'll take a look later on. The Main event is still way too long. It still resembles a play-by-play.--WillC 07:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still issues that need attending too. Cuts that still need to be made.--WillC 10:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It is the main event. It is extremely too long. It has too many spots. The only thing it needs is the match, the finish, and the McMahon stuff. Otherwise, the rest if just trivia for fans who want a play-by-play of the match.--WillC 10:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

MITB GA

I have redone the GA review for Money in the Bank (2011). Take a look and fix the problems and I'll most likely pass it if everything is fixed.--WillC 09:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

There are still things you haven't fixed. I suggest you fix them before I come back.--WillC 15:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed--WillC 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem and good luck.--WillC 14:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Money in the Bank (2011)

The article Money in the Bank (2011) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Money in the Bank (2011) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wrestlinglover -- Wrestlinglover (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		All-Around Amazing Barnstar
		For your tireless work in improving article quality as well as providing reliable statistics in move and deletion discussions... One AfD personally near to my heart immediately comes to mind.LM2000 (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

so RealDeal and I get barnstars but you and your fancy stats get left out? I think not.LM2000 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Hunico

My apologies, I thought he was still appearing on NXT as Hunico. Daren420c (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

@Daren420c:: you are right in one sense, he was still appearing on NXT as Hunico after 8 December, difference is, those episodes of NXT were originally taped before 8 December. Anyway, in the episode of NXT that just aired this week, he appeared as Sin Cara already. So that's settled, it's fine. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 01:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Our good friend

....Is back, see User: ValentSamuel, I am going to be out right now, so I thought you would like to make the sockpuppet investigation page. STATic message me! 17:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

@STATicVapor: - Thanks for the heads up, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Valentfred. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow, admins sure don't work by the hour. 4 minutes is all it took. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow

What a picture on the front cover.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I only found it because you wikilinked Beth Ditto. Thank God Bieber wasn't the on the first cover. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Hello

Thank you. I think you are the first person to actually try and help me edit and keep these as entries, rather than just criticize. I do appreciate it. I can get resources that match what you've suggested for the later Seasons, but in the earlier ones (2002), the media did not exist for independent wrestling. I was able to find very few things, but it's limited and many sources that existed have gone the way of the internet and are no longer available. I really don't want to leave out those Seasons for lack of sources, since they do build on the later ones. Do you have any suggestions on how to handle that? Thanks again. --BabsChikara (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick note. I'm replacing all the 411 references as recommended. I'm having no issue with it. The question is - how many references to do I need to prove this Wikipedia worthy? Is there a round about number or something that is looked for? (Totally honest question.) --BabsChikara (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Cageside Seats is part of the SBNation and information on it can be found here. I would like to have it added to the approved sources list, but didn't see how to do that. Do you know where I can request that?--BabsChikara (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber 3RR

I'm not sure if you have heard of WP:3RR but currently you are at #3 on that page. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: - whoa, thanks a lot. I've heard of it, but I thought it only applied for the "same material" being reverted. I will be more careful in future. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Full disclosure to anyone who reads this: Check my talk page, I've never edit warred before (I haven't removed anything other than bot notices like BracketBot) and I never intend to. Admittedly, my previous belief of 3RR only pertaining to reverts of the "same material" was a mistake, and I am glad for Dr.K's timely prompt. I would not have gotten to #3 if I had known that "different material" also applied. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries Starship. Glad to have been of help. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Justin Bieber RfC

If you have time and the desire to re-engage in the debate over legal issues and polls at the Justin Bieber article ....pls comment at Talk:Justin Bieber#RfC: Behaviour and legal issues Thank you for your time. -- Moxy (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chikara Season 11, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chikara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

new consensus?

Hi, paint. How are you. I read the conversation and I think we should have a new consensus about jargon in pro wrestling. What do you think? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I worked the weekend and I haven't enough time to read the consensus. Well, I think like Hulk, but maybe the best idea is to accept consensus. If both parts agree, fine. We use proper terms and no-wrestling readers will understand them. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I want to use heel and face, not hero and villain, because it feels silly. But if we put Face (description) it's fine. Also, I imagine we use the description once in the article, so the rest of the article, we can write properly. Also, I think the career is more than a list of matches. I don't know why, but classic wrestlers, like Hogan, Hart or Taker, are better than articles like Batista, Del Rio or Sheamus. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:PW

I ask that you return to WT:PW, I have proposed a new compromise for the parties that I think will benefit both sides and not violate jargon. I would appreciate your input on the matter.--WillC 12:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Viscera

Sorry, I wasn't trying to claim that his real name was more recognisable than his ring name (I know him only as "Viscera" from the Attitude-era). I assumed that the article was titled that way to avoid edit-wars over which ring name to use anyway, and that the debates over WP:COMMONNAME issues would have been settled there. My only issue was that your first edit to his listing was too long imo; but including his ring-names is a good idea. --Connelly90 10:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Should be read by you. It appears that you may have inadvertently been pushing the boundaries of canvassing editors considering your sub-RfC at Talk:Justin Bieber. I commend you to not do so in future. Collect (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your efforts at trying to find consensus on Justin Bieber, and reaching out to other editors to do so. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Sportfan5000:, I really appreciate it. All in the name of progress for the RfC. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank

Don't get discouraged. I nominated Lockdown (2008) and Turning Point (2008 wrestling) multiple times. It takes a couple tries with wrestling PPVs. No one wants to review them. Renominate it in 2 weeks. I'm surprised it just wasn't restarted. That should have been the appropriate action.--WillC 08:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine @Wrestlinglover:. Maybe I'll try peer review this time, the FAC closer suggested that. There's all the time in the world, and it's not as if the article needs edits for improvement. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, wrong WillC. I'm not sure what peer review will do. Not really about issues, more about need for reviewers for FA.--WillC 08:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

awsonofabitch, @Wrestlinglover: you impostor! Honestly I'll just do the peer review so I can say I followed the FAC closer's advice. Then after that, I'll make another FAC. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Slammiversary (2008)

I addressed what you said on the review.--WillC 07:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm noticing you are changing a couple of section headers. I wouldn't worry too much about them. I'm really the only one who calls them storylines. My attempt to be more professional in the production of the articles. Looks neater. There isn't any consensus on it. PPV expansion guidelines to my knowledge haven't been that up to date in recent years so I took it upon myself to improve the old standards.--WillC 08:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry @Wrestlinglover:. I'm not changing more of those section headers unless I want to (or already have) actually improve the article in the future. I thought it would be good to abide with the GAs you produced as a standard. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm flattered, thank you paint. Maybe one day I'll have all of the TNA monthly events done and I can retire. I started a project and pretty much determined to finish it.--WillC 08:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Well every four months there will be a new article for you to write, how can you retire? I actually seriously considered retiring after MITB '11 reaches FA.

@Wrestlinglover: - shoot, I just checked the WP:PW style guide, it says background. We shouldn't violate that. We should either change the style guide or follow it. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much about the style guide right now. Changing the title of a section isn't that big of a deal. I knew I was not going by the style guide when I changed it. Besides, I think it looks better this way. Makes more sense for the background section to cover the creation of the event, not the storylines.--WillC 09:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Nah, the style guide is everything! I'll propose a change at WT:PW in the near future. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too far off from completing some of my projects. Gonna take a while but I'll get it done. In the last 4 months alone I've popped out TNA Unbreakable, Bound for Glory (2005), Genesis (2005), Turning Point (2005 wrestling), Chris Candido Memorial Tag Team Tournament, and a rewrote Slammiversary (2008) and List of TNA Television Champions. Not to forget cleaning up the TNA Television Championship. I'll be done with Victory Road (2008) probably tonight, see here. Almost done with the 2008 TNA World X Cup Tournament as well, see here. I may just catch up with TNA and its events, unless it goes back to 12 a year which is likely. I still have to figure out how to handle TNA One Night Only.--WillC 09:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

But it's pretty much 2005 and 2008.... and you're very, very far away on 2006. I'm only targeting 3 more GAs so far... NXT Arrival, Rumble '14 and maybe Chamber '14. Arrival and Rumble '14 are already largely written up except for the Aftermath sections. If Bryan wins the big one at WM XXX, maybe that too. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You'll be surprised actually. I just finished VR 08, it is in and nominated. Final Resolution 2006 is already half way done. I'm just gonna finish the 2008 stuff and go back to 2006. I'll be working on 2006 and 2009 at the same time. I already have 2 done in 2007 and I have the 2 in 2004 finished. I got a bit complete. Not as much as I want, but still a decent amount considering I'm the only one who has gotten a TNA PPV to GA.--WillC 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

My comment was based on the fact that Genesis '06, Final Resolution '06 doesn't even exist yet. Seems like some of 2007 are uncreated too. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that is true. I'm glad that is so, it means less articles that are stubs. Plus I like the creation of articles. It feels nice. I can get Four Awards too with creation.--WillC 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully the idea of changing the section names or layout won't cause too much of an issue. Any mention of PPV style usually ends up in a debate about the disclaimer and less about making sure the PPVs are well written.--WillC 09:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it will be an issue if both of us support it, we're the only ones actually promoting PPVs. The disclaimer's discussion still remains open on the talk page. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. My issue is not that I like the disclaimer, it is that the disclaimer makes it easier. FA is hard enough as is, I'm surprised I have two FA PPVs. If the disclaimer just happened to be cut, it makes the process that much harder. I have a feeling most will support the change in design, it is getting off topic which worries me. I want that 2008 TNA PPV FA topic.--WillC 10:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll see I guess. We'll see. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 10:40, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to that later this week.--WillC 15:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I know. I've got alot going on this week assignment wise for college. I'll try to get to it this weekend. I got several papers and test for the week. Just busy. It should clear soon.--WillC 05:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gotten sick somehow now. I'm actually glad Eric Young won. He could be a big star if used right.--WillC 09:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Alex Koslov

Hi. I'm 100% that it IS Koslov. The lighting and camera angle make him look a lot more like Romero than he normally does. Regarding the name, NJPW calls them just "Forever Hooligans" without "The", but ROH calls them "The Forever Hooligans" (http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/forever-hooligans-are-back, http://www.rohwrestling.com/news/forever-hooligans-come-roh, etc.). I've tried to keep "The" off their name in all NJPW related articles (like IWGP Junior Heavyweight Tag Team Championship.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but it doesn't really bother me that much. I would support a move, but don't have any interest in initiating it.リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		Wow! I was leaning towards deleting the NXT Arrival article when that discussion began. Your single-handed extensive expansion on that article is nothing short of impressive.LM2000 (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well thank you very much @LM2000: I really appreciate this! It's my "tribute" to an excellent event. Heh, it's actually not my first time doing this kind of expansion, I just repeated what the process that got Extreme Rules (2012) and Money in the Bank (2011) to GA status. I'm trying to pimp MITB '11 for FA too. As for the future, I'm hoping to send NXT Arrival and Royal Rumble (2014) for GA nominations once the Aftermath sections play out. I might even try my hand at the monster task of expanding WrestleMania XXX... but only if Bryan wins the big one. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 02:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Awards

Thanks you very much for your award. :) At the begining, I only ulploaded photos, looks like it's time to change my userpage XD Thanks :) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@HHH Pedrigree: ah so you didn't see it until now? :( just joking, you're welcome! :) Looking forward to even more great contributions from you! starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 03:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OTRS

How's the OTRS going? Is everything going fine, or are there any issues? We don't have to wait for the OTRS to be processed by the volunteers, so as soon as you have received written permission from the copyright holder and have forwarded it to OTRS, you can notify everyone on the article talk page, so we can begin the DYK nomination process. Happy editing! --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gotten the OTRS email from the artist... yet >< starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 05:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Starship.paint. You have new messages at Benlisquare's talk page.
Message added 08:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--benlisquare_T•C•E 08:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Problems

Looks like we're having issues with the OTRS for the one you uploaded: diff. What happens now? --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Potential Reliable Sources

There are literally two, and only two, wrestling news websites I read. ProWrestling.net and Wrestling News World. Both I find to be extremely reliable, neither have ever led me astray. I trust both Jason Powell and Richard Gray to give me the most reliable information possible and not unsubstantiated rumors. It would mean a lot to be able to use them both as a source without WP:PW crying foul like they do now. CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 19:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@CR90: - like I said, right now I'm pushing for PWInsider. Only after that, I'll see whether I'll push for Dot Net. We could work together to push for Dot Net but you're going to have to do WNW yourself because I don't read WNW. But in the meantime, you would do well to stick to whatever reliable sources which have already been confirmed. You have to respect the rules the style guide has put out. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So where would I start to prove the reliability of WNW? CRRaysHead90 | ^#WelcomeHome 23:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

@CR90: - start a new discussion in WT:PW. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 01:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)