User talk:Starship.paint/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Sawk

I knew it! Where there's smoke, there's fire, and that whole thing smelled like a burning tire dump. Thanks for the help on that! Kjscotte34 (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess while I'm at it, how did the investigation get re-opened? Do you have a link or anything that I could read the new evidence and everything? I'm curious more or less. Kjscotte34 (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback!

Hey! Thanks for your feedback on my page, it's much appreciated. I'm new to this and the last thing I want to do is post inaccurate edits that make more work for someone else. I'll definitely take your comments on board and hopefully they'll make my future edits more accurate and reliable. Thank you! Rockyrock632 (talk) 14:36, 13 January (UTC)

Ok, I've finished Mason Ryan's moves. It's taken me AGES but I think it's accurate and I believe that I've done it right this time (hopefully!). It's definitely better than the last edit, that's for sure, haha! Rockyrock632 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Mason Ryan's moves section looks great now, definitely a job well done! I can see the differences between our edits and I see what you've done and now I know for next time. Took me a minute, but I get what <rf name=qwe/> is. It looks like it makes things a lot easier and I'm sure it'll save a lot of time, so thanks for showing me that. And the naming was confusing, but I honestly had no clue what to call each reference, so that just made the most sense to me at the time. T1 and IN1 are duly noted for future edits! Rockyrock632 (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Haha, thank you. I look forward to it too! Rockyrock632 (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thanks! I guess I'm starting to get the hang of this now. I saw the back body drop listed as a signature on Stone Cold's page, and Miz now appears to be using it every match so I thought it was perhaps relevant. I won't add turnbuckle thrusts anymore, it's just that I saw them on Brock Lesnar's page therefore also thought it was appropriate to add them. As for the IEDDT, I thought the same as you. I've not heard it used on TV before, except I thought I would add it under Orton's moves because I saw it in the caption of one of his photos. I'll go take it off now as it's probably not accurate then. And the name 'body surfing' was coined in a WWE Magazine interview with Christian a while back. I can remember what he said, but I can't find an online reference for it, so I'm not sure what to do about that one. Rockyrock632 (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, that's a good idea. I'll have a look for the magazine article later! Rockyrock632 (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I agree with you about the titles, I didn't change them on Miz's page, I just reworded some of week-by-week stuff and put commas in the right place. Wasn't me! Rockyrock632 (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Thanks

This user helped promote Extreme Rules (2012) to good article status.

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Extreme Rules (2012), which has recently become a GA. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

My Response.

Thought I wanted to work with everyone, I just can't. I would end up bbeing bossed around and restricted on editing. I don't use sources and rely on my mind to guess what it is and I had enough of User:Ryulong bossing me around when I did a edit on a page. Tell this to him that's the reason I don't want to work with anyone or trust anybody. He'll never understand anyway for me who thinks differently (I have Autism and I work things my way btw).--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) 02:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

titles

Hi, Starship. I think that you know nothing, but durning your hiatus, I proposed to put the same titles table in all championships articles, because when you see a titl from Japan, from Puerto Rico, from NWA 50... you'll see that all of them have different tables. Do you want to help me? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I wrote a discussion in the talk page. here I imagine that the discussion is in the archive. We have a Style guide for titles, but a lot of championships have different tables. List of WWE Champions, WWC Puerto Rico Heavyweight Championship, IWA Undisputed World Heavyweight Championship, NWA Florida Heavyweight Championship, List of early world heavyweight champions in professional wrestling, AJPW Triple Crown Heavyweight Championship, Open the Dream Gate Championship, GHC Openweight Hardcore Championship I want to put the same table. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I think that we have to use the tbale of the style guide. I'll change some articles, but I can't do it with all the championships. Thanks --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Question

How can you say that Wrestling Inc and Cageside Seats are unreliable resources?

Diva-Dirt

Diva-Dirt needs to be a reliable source its the only wrestling news site to give the full length women's matches unlike Wrestleview and PWInsider. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Not all time on several occasions it just listed who won. I made a mistake it was PWTorch not PWinsider. --Miss X-Factor (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks for teaching me about sources Miss X-Factor (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Starship.paint. You have new messages at STATicVerseatide's talk page.
Message added 01:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

STATic message me! 01:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

121.220.49.19

I try to explain to this user what is a good source is but doesn't lisen --Miss X-Factor (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Japanese capitalization

This one right here.Ribbon Salminen (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I can't help but notice you're one of several editors who agrees that articles like CIMA (wrestler) should be spelled with the proper all-caps spelling regardless of what a guideline and a dogmatic self-appointed hall monitor of an editor like Ribbon Salminen says.

Perhaps you'd like to back me up? The CIMA article is full of people reverting to the allcaps spelling with only Ribbon and a now-indefinitely blocked editor disagreeing.

I'm a former wikipedia editor who left and scrambled his password because of nitwits like Ribbon, just fyi. 198.200.181.205 (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding jargon in section headers

Thanks for the heads up. I did indeed miss the original discussion due to being on an 18-month wikibreak at the time. I've reopened the discussion at WP:PW and given my thoughts. I'm pretty sure that the use of insider terms is contrary to the Manual Of Style but maybe that's just my interpretation. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: Cesaro single leg swing

Hiya, I completely understand if you want to remove it. I'm sure I've seen him do it at least 3 different times but I've scoured YouTube and match reports for the past year and I can't for the life of me find any more examples. It does seem he's not used it in the last six months so feel free to remove it totally if you want. Duffs101 (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah no probs, just a shame because it is such a unique move, but I'm guessing there's some reason he's stopped using it. And yes I've been looking forward to Regal Vs Cesaro for a while now, I'm sure it wont disappoint. Cheers and happy holidays to you too. Duffs101 (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Greetings

I just wanted to stop by and say hi. I see you have been working on a few PPVs and trying to get them to GA. I like to see that. In recent years people have been falling out of the project and expansion has dropped off gigantically. I saw you have nominated one for GA and if I have the time I may review it (mainly due to the fact I am about to nominate several articles I was close to finishing before getting sidetracked by college). Just thought I'd stop by and say keep up the good work. I've been here a while and if you need help I'm here.--WillC 07:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've gotten two to FA before Lockdown (2008) and Turning Point (2008 wrestling). The reviewers are really hard on the prose and understanding of the topic. Becomes a giant hassle.--WillC 08:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it usually takes a couple of nominations to get an article promoted. One of my main goals is to get all of the 2008 TNA PPVs to FA. I've only gotten 2 but nominated 3 of them. About to nominate another one soon.--WillC 09:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I plan to review it come the first of January so that I can submit it to the WP:WikiCup. The main issues I see are placement of things are wrong. Some things aren't notable. Goes too in-depth. etc. These are basic things I did when I started writing long ago with Lockdown and later Sacrifice, especially Sacrifice. I'm glad I went back and fixed both of those, they are much better now after I learned a few things. Removal and repair of these things will make it easier on you in the future as well make the articles better. Here are some examples of what to expect when writing them. After so many PPVs, I can just pop them out now in a day or two: Unbreakable and Bound for Glory. Main thing to remember is less is more. Everything may seem notable, but alot of it is not. Think big, go small in the long run. Lockdown when I first wrote it pretty much included every single thing and was bigger than any WrestleMania article. I look at Money in the Bank and I see a great effort. Awesome job I say. It just needs a bit of a clean up. Alot of the old editors on here are gone it seems that could help you see some of the mistakes. Now that I'm back for a while working on my old projects, I'll try to help you out. Someone needs to be doing the WWE PPVs. Several people stopped it seems. Last time I was active I was the only one expanding any PPVs, so it is nice to see someone trying.--WillC 05:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Various things. One being the results table. I know why you placed it where it is but the table is meant to be a quick reference only, outside of the actual article and should be at the bottom. That way it doesn't interfere with the flow of the article as the "Event" section does the exact same job. As for the indepth, the Divas Title match as I recall is not notable and pretty much anything connected to it should be removed. I like that you used a variety of sources, but the more sources the harder it is to get by FA. FA is hard on sources and I've always had difficulty with WrestleView during the FAC process. I find WrestleView just as reliable as PW Torch, Figure Four, etc but it is hard to get most of them to believe it as a reliable source. I finally turned them around with Turning Point. Now that WV has updated its site to give more info on their articles, it may be easier. Alot of things to really cover right now. One being the history of the money in the bank match. It is to the point that FAC will find it content forking and you'll get several opposes quickly due to this I suspect. I looked at Extreme Rules 2012 and that article looks correct style-wise. I'd look into morphing Money in the Bank to resemble that. I'd move the disclaimer to the storylines section. I see you have adapted the format I created with "Production, Background, and Storylines". The disclaimer is better suited for the storylines section as that is truly where it is needed. Hold off on the Money in the Bank rules until the event section. That is where it is needed most. If you truly want a production section, look into when the event was announced, when the theme was announced, when the poster was released, etc. Your background section is more the idea behind the PPV which is nice, but that section is missing alot of information. Take a look at the BFG background section for a better idea. The current storylines section is more of a chronology of what happened. Start with the main event, that is the main point to the whole event. The predominate is the money in the bank matches, weird I know considering the name. Mentioned when they were announced, any qualifying matches, and when participants were announced. Any attacks on other opponents is truly week by week and is only meant to add hype to the match. That isn't necessary information to the encyclopedia as a whole. That is moreso trivia than anything else. The minor storylines are better suited for the bio articles or other ppvs. Stick to the main idea. The event is a play-by-play in its current state. It isn't meant to be a play-by-play according to the MoS and previous consensus through FAC, GAN, WP:PW, etc. State the match and rules, participants, duration of encounter, any special spot (Take the BFG Monster's Ball match or the Unbreakable main event), and the finish. If anything happened afterwards like a debut, an attack which led to something later, a return, or a major announcement then note it as well (again BFG after Monster's Ball). Once the event is cut down it gives the straight-forward idea. When mentioning moves, give an idea of what is happening: "Joe slammed Styles into the mat with his signature Muscle Buster maneuver". That way we can use the names without dealing with the jargon guideline. I've had that issue with FAC. The reviewers have no idea what is going on and things don't make sense. Show what is fiction and what isn't. Take Henry vs Big Show. I don't remember Big Show actually having a legit injury from the event but the section makes it sound like he actually sustained one. That is having the article In universe. Clarify that to show it was a scripted injury. Simple to say that "Henry broke Big Show's ankle in the storyline with a steel chair after the bout". I'll go further in detail during the review on Tuesday night so that I can help get this to FA material.--WillC 07:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you take constructive criticism well, it will really help later on. When I first started it annoyed the hell out of me but with time I found it very very useful. I hope you won't let any of my comments get to you or anything, I'm honestly trying to help ya out. I did the same things you have done when I first started. It is all trial and error.--WillC 07:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been doing this for say close to 6 years now. I can spot issues right off the bat without reading the article that much. Just hold off on any changes until the review. I will clarify all of my comments then. I'll go down the article and separate them by sections so that you know exactly what I mean, why, and any suggests to fix them. When I review an article I take time. That is why I only review rarely. It takes very long for me in most cases.--WillC 08:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at this

Hey Starship. I just wanted to leave this here in case you haven't seen it yet. One of the posters seems to be honored that you used his quotes :) LM2000 (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)