User talk:Yours TrulyST

February 2014

Hello, I'm STATicVapor. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jeff Hardy, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. STATic message me! 06:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ STATicVapor Thanks for the response.....even though I think it was more of a machine copy-and-paste job, I at least understand where you're coming from. Yes, I am new to Wikipedia-however I did include a citation the second time to a video of the vignette from last night's showing of IMPACT Wrestling. As it's the only currently available source on Google (believe me, I've scoured the place but to no avail) I used it instead. But I still believe it should be justified on the page.--Pugilism&Philosophy (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still the majority of the content was original research as what you were saying was not coming from the source, you were just making your own analysis of the appearance in your comparison to his OMEGA gimmick. STATic message me! 07:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Lesnar

Hi, I reverted your addition to the Brock Lesnar article because the source you cited appears to be a satire website. I'd recommend you read Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources. Thanks. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just realized that. Eh, I wrote that during a time in which many people were in shock and awe over the defeat of the Undertaker, and we're looking for any sign of doubt over the results. I wrote it in haste, and I apologize for that.

--Pugilism&Philosophy (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note though, I did notice someone put a quite nasty remark on my User Page (which remains blank, I know, I'll fix that soon). I know it wasn't you, but I'd rather not be insulted on a site such as this....Either way I've learned my lesson on the matter, and it won't happen again.

--Pugilism&Philosophy (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's persistent vandalism on your user page you can ask for it to be protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (that's probably not necessary at this point though). You might also want to warn any editors who vandalise your user page by placing {{subst:uw-upv}} on their talk page. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 03:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Hello Pugilism&Philosophy. I am a fellow editor of professional wrestling articles, and I have experience in getting them to "Good Article" status. Perhaps you could take heed of some of my advice. Look at the version of the Shield's article after you edited it. The second paragraph of "rebellion against authority" is seven lines long and consists of events happening from March 17 to April 6. The third paragraph, which you added, consists of events happening totally on the April 7 Raw and is six lines long. Do you see the problem here?
The information you added is way too detailed. We have a term called "week-by-week events". We can't list every single action the Shield does each and every week. Or the article will be too detailed. Always summarise. Do we really need to say "Ambrose and Rollins fought off Batista and Orton while Reigns speared Triple H, allowing Bryan time to recover and hit Triple H with a running knee." - nope. Only include information which will be relevant in the long-term.
Look at how I edited the article, I reduced the content to four lines, plus, I added a reliable secondary source, PWTorch, instead of a primary source (WWE.com) - Wikipedia is all about reliable secondary sources first and foremost. The list of reliable sources is here. Hope you will work on more advice - we definitely need more good editors around here. starship.paint "YES !" 12:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the criticism, and I agree-I can be a little bit long winded when it comes to talking about wrestling, and I guess that's just the fan and writer that's in me. So I apologize for any confusion and or work that had to be put through to change things back to a better quality. I'm getting better, I think....I hope I'm improving. I used WWE.com as the source for that one edit because I couldn't find anything on my usual source of information for wrestling news (which, oddly enough isn't listed on the list for reputable sites) and that is Bleacher Report. I trust that you believe that I do watch the shows and try my best to interpret the chaos that usually ensues there

Regardless, thank you for your help-and I look forward to helping you and other editors boost the quality of these pages here on Wikipedia, one of my favorite sites on the web

--Pugilism&Philosophy (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another tip, read WP:INDENT. Let me put it this way: write it as if you would read it a year or two from now. What is important, and what is not?
Bleacher Report? I'm sorry, but that is a confirmed unreliable source. You might want to read WP:RS. I'll give you the short reasons why. Anybody can write for BR, even you or me. You don't have to be an expert because it's all "user-generated content". That's why BR and blogs are not allowed. On here, we need expert opinions, for example the Wrestling Observer run by Dave Meltzer or the Torch by Wade Keller. Or, any national newspapers which (occasionally) cover wrestling: The Mirror / Baltimore Sun etc.
As for interpreting the chaos, it's not your job to do that. That would be orginal research. Let the reliable sources do the interpretations. We merely cite and paraphrase the sources. Anything that we write here must be verified by the source. Anyway you have a good attitude, which will help you in your journey forward! starship.paint "YES !" 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's news to me. But then again, that same argument can put to this site by other sources in the educational community (College Professors are so easily geared to point that out). Which is sad but true. I know better than that obviously, but the same logic can be placed here.
And I'm glad you pointed that last sentence about interpretation. Again, it's all in my username on here...I do tend to form my own opinions on article on here. I'm willing to move on and rectify said mistakes though, but you'll have to forgive me on the fact that I am not an expert, but a fan like you are more than likely as well.
Once again, I thank you for the creative criticism. I'll do my best to improve on here shortly ---Pugilism&Philosophy (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just informing you, prowrestling.com is not a reliable source. Instead, use site:pwtorch.com OR site:slam.canoe.ca OR site:pwinsider.com OR site:f4wonline.com OR site:wrestleview.com while Googling. starship.paint "YES !" 02:23, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited WWE 2K15, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viktor. 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) 14:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Pugilism&Philosophy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yours TrulyST. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]