User talk:OldSkool01

You are cordially invited to take part in this discussion in which you are mentioned. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 20:14, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have broken the 3RR rule and you need to stop no matter what the reason is for your edits. The reality is this - the Corporate pages you are relying on are keyed to North America only. That's the way WWE worked in 2002, so of course any pay per view won't be mentioned simply because it wasn't shown in North America. But all six of my sources (and there are more to come soon hopefully) are not fan sites and further they are not unreliable. You need to find a reliable source that states that "Global Warning was not a pay per view event". WWE Corporate in this case is not good enough because independent sourcing contradicts it - or rather clears a grey area as the offical site doesn't make it clear either way. I strongly recommend that you leave this alone until you find the specified source with the quote I made (it doesn't need to be exact of course, but the message needs to be clear - omission of a statement is not enough). Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Curse of Fenric WWE's press releases always mention whether or not a show is available on pay-per-view. Their press releases for Insurrextion and Rebellion mention they were on PPV, why would they not mention it for Global Warning? Also, if this was indeed a PPV, why is it not on the WWE Network? All of the UK PPVs are on the Network. Global Warning isn't. I have tons of sources mentioning that this was not a pay-per-view, but they're not reliable sources so I'm not going to print them. Of the reliable sources that I do have, in addition to WWECorporate, there's also TheHistoryOfWWE.com which makes note of every show that ever aired on PPV. No mention for Global Warning. ProWrestlingHistory.com is another site that mentions whether or not a show ever aired on PPV. No mention for Global Warning. I see that you're from Australia, so maybe you have a bias towards this show, I'm not sure, but unless you can show me an advertisement, a commercial, an event poster or any other sort of proof that this show aired on PPV, then there is no legit proof that this show aired on PPV. If you watch the show on DVD, there are no commentators seated at ringside. Tazz and Michael Cole did voiceovers later on back at the WWE TV studios. They never appear on camera once. Also, on the DVD there are only 6 matches shown. The live show had several additonal matches that are cut out. The reason is because Tazz & Cole did not do commentary for them. Even the Australian release of Global Warning did not include the complete show. Unfortunately, what has happened over the last 13 years is someone incorrectly posted that this show aired on PPV and since then it just spread as fact. And for many years Wikipedia has had that show listed on the WWE Pay-Per-Views list. So pretty much all of those sites that you listed as sources used Wikipedia as their reference for calling Global Warning a PPV. Anyone who was a fan back in 2002, like myself, who read all of the coverage online from fans who were there live the day Global Warning happened, remembers vividly that there was not one mention of this show airing on PPV. Do you know anyone in Australia who actually watched this show on PPV? And Fanatic Series doesn't count because those were pre-packaged "Best-Of" shows that WWE would run on PPV channels. They usually aired a condensed version of whatever home video release was popular at that time. Now before I go back and re-edit the Global Warning show, I'm getting all my ducks in row first. I have an e-mail out to Dave Meltzer and Bryan Alvarez of Wrestling Observer, as well as Mike Johnson of PWInsider asking to confirm on their respective sites that this show did not air on PPV. To be continued...OldSkool01 (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please move this to the talk page of Global Warning. That is procedure. Thanks. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Curse of Fenric Looks like the Global Warning page doesn't exist anymore. That's a shame. Oh well. There was nothing special about that show anyway. It wasn't a PPV nor was it on television. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article may have been deleted but the event still has a word-for-word photocopy on Professional wrestling in Australia. The fight over "pay-per-view" wording continues there. Curse of Fenric participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warning Tour (2nd nomination) in 2007 argued it was a PPV then, not much has changed apparently.LM2000 (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to also note that that article was deleted through AfD twice on the grounds that it was not a PPV. It has been deleted a handful of other times by PROD. The consensus formed on two separate occasions is that it is not a PPV. No reliable sourcing has since been provided to change this. I also think that its section currently on Professional wrestling in Australia is undue but that's a separate matter.LM2000 (talk) 07:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel like I've been arguing for years that Global Warning did not belong on any PPV list. Right before the page was deleted I included a source from WrestlingObserver.com. It was from August 10, 2002 by a fan who was there live at the show and he specifically mentioned in the report that the show was not airing on PPV. I think I'll include that same source to the professional wrestling in Australia article. OldSkool01 (talk) 12:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Good find! It's not going to get more reliable and cut-and-dry than that.LM2000 (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it's just as much a fan report as the others I originally had and were torn down as unreliable. Besides, I can verify a number of inaccuracies in the report as I was there as much as this reporter was. The main reason for the deletion years ago due to lack of sources either way. We have those now and I am miffed that the article itself has been deleted, especially as it is a notable event anyway due to the attendance record it set at the time. But I digress. The reality is we have an impasse that can only be resolved by (a) Finding a source that expressly states that it was not shown on pay per view (b) Finding a TV guide from south east Asia that shows that it was shown. I tried to find a digital copy of the Straits Times, but it wouldn't let me access it. One assumes that Ten Sports would have shown it if it was shown, but I don't know how far Ten Sports went in 2002 beyond Singapore. Meanwhile - I'm going to edit Pro Wrestling in Australia with some neutral commentary (an IP has just reverted to my edit but at this point I don't think that helps) referencing the dispute to give both of us some time to sort this out. Curse of Fenric (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Curse of Fenric Here you go buddy. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I contacted Dave Meltzer(one of the absolute most respected and trusted wrestling reporters out there) and he confirmed today that Global Warning was indeed NOT a ppv. Check this out and scroll down towards the end of the article. http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-stories/118-daily-updates/42664-thurs-update-more-from-nxt-takeover-samoa-joe-deal-notes-what-tna-talent-has-been-told-white-predicts-2-million-buys-for-rousey-vs-cyborg-lawler-angle- End of debate. Game set match. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources, Dave Meltzer and the Wrestling Observer are considered far more reliable than any other sources presented so far (PWTorch is comparable, they simply reported on the DVD and never called it a PPV).LM2000 (talk) 01:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not when he's expressing a personal opinion, which he makes a habit of. OldSkool you had NO RIGHT to contact Dave as I said to you already. That's manipulation and detracts from it's reliability. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No right?! Who are you to tell me what my "rights" are? I asked a reliable source a direct question and he answered it on his site. How is that manipulation? I don't appreciate your attitude. You need to get over it and accept the facts that have been provided. I'm done with this. OldSkool01 (talk) 02:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Meltzer is part wrestling historian, part commentator. Decisively saying the event was not a PPV is fact, not editorial commentary. The original Observer source OldSkool provided should have been good enough to end the debate, after you raised concerns OldSkool was well within their rights to ask the publisher for a clarification. We now have that clarification and I think it's time we respect the consensus achieved throughout the years at various AfDs and stop listing Global Warning as a PPV.LM2000 (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• LM2000 Over on the talk page of Professional wrestling in Australia I've added several other links that provide further evidence showing Global Warning did not air on PPV. I've had a ridiculously long back and forth debate with Curse Of Fenric, who refuses to believe that the show did not air on PPV. I think all of the evidence I provided is more than enough to finally end this debate.OldSkool01 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like we have a troll over on the Professional wrestling in Australia page. Someone with no username and no sources or references changing Global Warning because he claims he saw it on PPV in VIETNAM of all places. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OldSkool01. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sir, please review WP:CIVIL particularly the part "Try not to get too intense." You have been bossy towards the other user on this noticeboard and you would be well advised to review your conduct. Ta. 101.160.23.40 (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Excuse me if I'm a little confused, but at what point was I not being civil? I responded with exactly what was asked of me. I stated my case and I made it easier for the admins to read the entire debate in question and even provided links to said conversations. Also, the user who initiated this has been far more intense than I. If you go back and read the entire convo we've been having, he makes false accusations towards me and even resorts to name calling. I think I've been more than fair and calm with my responses. Also, why was my last reponse completely deleted? That response included some very important information for the admins to read. No reason to remove that comment.OldSkool01 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was because you were in violation of WP:CIVIL and I shall remove it again presently. Do not be a bully. Even out your words in a less volatile manner. Any provocation you claim is not relevant. He has been brief only and has stated his case and nothing more. Ta. 101.160.23.40 (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the IP's second deletion and warned them. Your post was fine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't. Bullying is not allowed. He's being a bully. Ta. 101.160.23.40 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Elee was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of WWE Network events and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

E. Lee (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWETLC2014OfficialPoster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that. He has been trying to put that poster on repeatedly, it is getting annoying you know?  MPJ-US  01:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  MPJ-US He's also been putting up various custom fan-made posters on other TakeOver events as well. He doesn't seem to grasp the rules of what posters are accepted and which ones are not. He's probably gonna think I'm picking on him, but I'm not. I'm just trying to make it clear to him. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You need to provide a new source for Cleveland, Ohio. The source you have there is for STL. That is why I changed it to the source. If you cannot find a source for Cleveland, Ohio, then it should be STL as the source states. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kiraroshi1976 Done. The main article for Fastlane 2016 already had the correct sources. I updated the PPV list source. OldSkool01 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:List of WWE Network events, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 00:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OldSkool01. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "List of WWE Network events".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's back. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Global Warning Melbourne.LM2000 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWETLC2015logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I made the changes I did.

1. Removing links to well-known locations, such as New York City. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#What_generally_should_not_be_linked).
2. Avoiding state abbreviations (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations#Special_considerations)
3. Fixing (simplifying) links to venues:

The names of venues tend to change because of sponsorship deals with naming rights. A redirect provides a simple way to ensure that all links to an old name will go to the article under the current name. Piping an old name to the current name is pointless because if the name changes again, as it surely will when the current sponsorship deal comes to an end, the piped name will itself become a redirect and the already trivial benefit of a direct link will be lost. This has already happened in several cases - for example [[Baltimore Arena|1st Mariner Arena]] simply pipes the name to another name which has since been superseded, and is now itself a redirect.

Here are some relevant extracts from guides to best practice in piping and redirects:

1. From Wikipedia:Piped_link#When_not_to_use:

• It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page.
• Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
• Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.

1. From Wikipedia:Redirect#Do_not_.22fix.22_links_to_redirects_that_are_not_broken:

• There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]].

Colonies Chris (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colonies Chris That's all well and good, but you did such a haphazard job. Some locations include city and state, some only include the city, some cities are linked, others are not. The general consensus has always been to have a uniform look. And both city and state should be included. If doing away with abbreviations is a big deal, then no problem. I can go along with full names. But now you've given me a ton of work to do. I'm keeping the full names, but every location will include both city and state. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed some time ago that certain major cities don't need the state - for example, New York City, Seattle, Los Angeles, Chicago, etc., and those articles were changed to remove the state from the article title. There's no benefit to specifying the state when it's neither necessary nor helpful. And major internationally known cities don't need linking either. Nobody's going to wonder 'New York City, whereabouts is that?' and click the link to find out. Colonies Chris (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about that. It's about this particular page, and this particular list, having a uniform neat look. It's been like this for years and no one has ever complained about it. There was a discussion about this years ago. How other pages decide to list cities is up to those specific pages. It doesn't have to be uniform across all of Wikipedia. Each page is different. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm JCRules. I noticed that you made a change to an article, NXT TakeOver (2016), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history 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. JC · Talk · Contributions 03:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JCRules, you jumped the gun there, didn't you? There was no need for you to make any changes in the first place because there were already links proving the name of the event(the link next to the Aries vs Nakamura match being one of them). That's why I made the changes that I did. If you looked at the edit history of that page you'll notice that I've been very strong on enforcing that people provide verified sources confirming the name of the event. Why would I then make changes myself without doing the same thing? OldSkool01 (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, when moving pages, please make sure there are no Requested Moves open at the time. One of your moves which you did on 13 June 2016 at NXT TakeOver: Brooklyn (2016) ended up in a discussion being almost worthless. Please double check before moving pages, thanks. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I did see the requested moves discussion, but once the new official title of the event was confirmed there was no need to go further with the discussion. As you said, continuing the discussion was pointless. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sceptre had requested and granted full page protection on List of WWE pay-per-view events because he believes that PWInsider isn't reliable and wants proof from Sky Italia and WWE themselves that the shows are going to happen. The user is just grasping for straws.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So one person makes a request and gets an instant full protection? Smells fishy to me. And looking at the edit history page, the full protection was made minutes after Sceptre made their last edit. Definitely something unethical going on. No way does a page get full protected based on one person not considering a particular website a verifiable source. This needs to be looked into. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, they're saying PWInsider fails reliability.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Vince McMahon is recognized as Mr. McMahon in WWE World Heavyweight Championship history. Please look at http://www.wwe.com/classics/titlehistory/wwe-world-heavyweight-championship.--Shinkazamaturi (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you kidding me? You have some nerve. Show me where I made any personal attacks on anybody. Go ahead, I'll wait. OldSkool01 (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not kidding you. You begin the edit war. Because, you continue to change Mr. McMahon to Vince over and over and over again. Look at WWE.com before you attack.

• I ask again, where's the personal attack? Also I'm not the only one who reverted your edits. Several people did because your edits were unnecessary. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admit your wrongdoings and move along. Is it worth getting blocked over? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you talking to? You're replying to a conversation that was finished 2 months ago? OldSkool01 (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting my edit on WWE Championship (fixing dates). I appreciate someone catching my silly mistake. See you around! JTP ^(talk) 01:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of WWE Champs. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of former championships in WWE. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of former championships in WWE – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JamesG5 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this page being deleted. I made an error in creating it in the first place. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of WWE champs. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of former championships in WWE. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of former championships in WWE – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. JamesG5 (talk) 06:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this page being deleted. I made an error in creating it in the first place. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove Rusev vs. Roman Reigns from the match listing. It never officially started thus should be noted as such on the match listings. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a match doesn't take place, IT DOES NOT BELONG in the results table. It belongs in the "Event" section, which is where it already is. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you can make the claim that your edits on Survivor Series were done for consistency. You appear to have made the change on the majority of the articles, which means you took it farther away from its previous consistency. "Traditional" is meaningless to casual readers, so 4-on-4 makes much more sense. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional" is what WWE has been calling it forever. Anyone can see how many participants are in the match just by looking at the match results. It's not like a battle royal or Royal Rumble where you have 20-30 guys and need to count them all. But if you want to compromise, how does "5-on-5 traditional Survivor Series elimination match" sound? We keep both versions. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I watched wrestling, they never used the word "traditional". GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I remember these matches being referred to as traditional Survivor Series matches was in 1992. On commentary they referred to them as such. And from 1989 they called Survivor Series itself the "Thanksgiving Night Tradition". In the early 2000's they referred to the matches as "Classic" Survivor Series matches. And for the last decade or so they've pushed hard the "traditional" name. Even the on-screen graphics have been using that term. OldSkool01 (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OldSkool01. 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]

Stop adding those matches to Roadblock: End of the Line, NOTHING is official yet. Just because their (PPG Paints Arena) Twitter and Facebook Accounts announced it doesn't make it official (Hell it's not even on their site). I'm going to keep undoing your edit until it is official by WWE themselves. ForrestFuller (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't worth arguing over. Especially since those matches will "officially" be announced in 3 days. However, the fact that you broke several WP guideline rules, including removal of verified sources as well as blatant 3R edits, not to mention your language in the edits and your message to me showing your intention to continually edit war, I could have easily reported you. I had way more than enough evidence against you. But like I said, those matches will be announced on Raw Monday, so this article isn't worth it. In the future please show a little more respect to the other editors and learn more about WP's guidelines as far as what is and what isn't allowed. Thank you. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change nxt takeover Orlando to march 30th due to the hall of fame on the 1st Billlangan133 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The Hall Of Fame is on Friday March 31st. TakeOver is on Saturday April 1st. Why would I move TakeOver to Thursday March 30th? OldSkool01 (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWF European Championship with all 5 plates.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWF European Championship Belt circa 2001.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've done a fair amount of editing while logged out. That's not in itself abusive, but it can make people think that you are trying to appear as two separate people. This is problematic when doing reverts. To avoid any appearance of impropriety, please be extra careful to always do your edits (and very, very particularly, always do your reverts) while signed in. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm very careful to not make any edits on WP when I'm not logged in. In fact, I'm just about always logged in. Where exactly did I make these edits you are referring to? OldSkool01 (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to these edits: Special:Contributions/176.36.57.234. --Yamla (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then you're talking to the wrong guy. A simple IP lookup shows that this editor is located in the Ukraine. I'm in New York City. Use iplocation.net. Furthermore it looks like this user literally copy and pasted my edit note from an edit I made on this page on January 5th: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NXT_Tag_Team_Championship&action=history. That's probably the reason why you're accusing me of this. OldSkool01 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! My apologies. I'll hard-block that IP address for impersonation, then. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Honestly, I don't know why WP even allows anonymous IPs to post at all. It's not that hard to create a username. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		This barnstar is awarded for working toward building consensus and improving articles through productive discussion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWE Payback 2016 Official WWEShop.com Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Link???? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you're referring to the main event debate. Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_events/Archive_2#No_Mercy_Main_Event OldSkool01 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, been away from the wrestling articles for a while so I missed the debate. Kind regards Luke. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. OldSkool01 (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name has to have WWE in it or it will get linked to Great Balls of Fire Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I removed the links. No need to have a red link until the page is created. OldSkool01 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were saying?? That's why I put WWE on the front because hey IPs do exactly what I said they'd do. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there's an undo button. IP's mess up these WP pages all the time. Nothing new. OldSkool01 (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	WWE PPV
	You should include here Roadblock (March 2016). Maybe it was a network special but it was more promoted than Beast in the East and Live from MSG, and unlike those two events, Roadblock name was at every RAW stage before the event. Tombstoneride (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roadblock from March 2016 is included on the List of WWE Network events page. There are two seperate pages. One for shows that only aired on PPV and one for shows that aired on PPV AND the WWE Network. Roadblock from March 2016 did not air on PPV therefore it does not go on the List of WWE Pay-Per-View events page. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	WWE PPV
	And also include The Big Event and Royal Rumble 1988. I know those events were not originally PPV events, but WWE Network has added them to their pay-per-view list. Tombstoneride (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter what the WWE Network does or doesn't include in their PPV section. Bottom line is The Big Event and Royal Rumble '88 did not air on PPV at all. So it doesn't belong on the List of WWE Pay-Per-View events page. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you reverted the article List of WWE pay-per-view events
But unfortunately you have written wrong because the main event was announced between Jeff Hardy and Edge and at the end of the match, CM Punk cashed-in his Money In The Bank with a match that was not announced before the event see
I hope I have been able to understand you and thank you
Yazan Kanbar (talk) 16:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. On the List of WWE pay-per-view events and List of WWE Network events pages, we always go by the final match on the show as the main event, even if that match was not the most heavily advertised match leading into the event. That includes all PPVs where a last minute match took place, such as Money in The Bank cash-ins. There was a long discussion about this last year and the consensus was to always go with the final match. OldSkool01 (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me with the Money In The Bank Ladder Match edits! HulaHoopWWE (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that your information on the most pay-per-view matches is coming from an unreliable source. The site that is tracking that information is not going by the information on Wikipedia from past WWE events but instead by their own preferences. I have kept track of this information myself, starting with the first PPV (WrestleMania). I've kept track of every Superstar's win:Loss record through last night's Survivor Series event and can provide you with the correct information, as chronicled on Wikipedia. Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtox31 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps your information is correct, but it’s still your own original research, which is unfortunately not allowed on Wikipedia. IWDB is used all over Wikipedia as a source and unless you can find a more reliable source, then that’s the most accurate website where that information is listed. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OldSkool01. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WWE United Kingdom Championship Tournament 2 has been officially announced. I have included it in the List of WWE Network events with source. Can you please check that everything is alright? And please don't reply with a huge essay like you did in other talks. TheBiz (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The dates have been confirmed, but nowhere in your source does it mention airing on the WWE Network. With that said, there was a commercial over WrestleMania weekend advertising a “UK King Of The Ring” special coming up, which is most likely this same event, even though your source doesn’t mention King Of The Ring either. We’ll leave it on the list for now, pending any further announcements. Also I removed the link you made since that link leads to the page for last year’s UK Tournament. OldSkool01 (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OldSkool01. 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]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of WWE Network events, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asuka (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Official poster for Money In The Bank 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Official poster for Money In The Bank 2016.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to thank you for reverting the unsourced junk on the List of WWE pay per view events. That IP range is also vandalising other pages, insisting on including a promotional link in a draft for Pro Wrestling Australia, insisting on adding Pro Wrestling Australia to the List of professional wrestling organisations in Australia against the rules of such lists and doing the same to the Pro Wrestling in Australia template (as well as claiming Pro Wrestling Women's Alliance is still active when they haven't held a show since 2013). Could you help keep an eye on this? I can't always be here to revert this rubbish. The page links are on the IP's contributions list. Or you can look at mine where the correct versions are found. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:FCA7:DF6A:884F:C568 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason you "can't always revert" is because you get blocked a lot. Mainly for this sort of non-sense. 2601:983:827F:DF50:F481:9FA5:DF0:7398 (talk)

In this case it's you who's in the wrong. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:ADFF:8B67:68D0:7E9E (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that WWE's inconsistency bothers you almost as much as it does me. I got some of their errors fixed by contacting them on reddit and Twitter. Are you interested in getting more errors fixed?WrestlingLegendAS (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WrestlingLegendAS, there’s a ton. The biggest ones are the inaccurate number of days on title reigns. Go look at most “List of [fill in the blank]] Champions”. There’s plenty of reigns where WWE recognizes 1 week title reigns as only 6 days or sometimes 8 days. And I’m not talking about instances where WWE waited for a taped match to air on TV before recognizing the change. I’m talking about changes, for example, where a new champion is crowned live on Raw and then that champion would lose the title exactly a week later on the next live Raw, which is 7 days, but for some reason WWE will count it as either 6 days or 8 days. There’s a bunch of inconsistencies like that. Too many to list. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WWE updates things after few times RB2616 (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Roderick Strong become NXT Tag Team Champion that he didn't win become Champion under freebird rule during first reign RB2616 (talk) 03:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t know yet if Thatcher is permanent or if it was just for one night. Wait until further information becomes available to make any changes. OldSkool01 (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, OldSkool01. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Tombstoneride (talk) 06:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited No Holds Barred: The Match/The Movie, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dusty Rhodes. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! OldSkool01 (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there OldSkool01 First of all thank you for your contributions to the WWE PPV page. I just wanted to let you know that there is an issue with the most PPV matches section. The Miz has 122 matches but the page only shows 121 because his match at WrestleMania was never counted. Hopefully you could change it because i couldn't since I'm new here. Thanks

The “Most pay-per-view matches” section only has one reliable source and we can only go by what that source has listed, which is Miz at 121 matches. If you can find another reliable source that specifically lists the top wrestlers with the most ppv matches, then please send it along. Also, remember to sign your name at the end of messages. OldSkool01 (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at WWE Championship. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Same goes for the WWE Universal Championship article. You need to stop forcing your view onto the pages. It's 3-1 against you on the talk page. When that happens, to quote a great philosopher, you have to know when to hold 'em, and know when to fold 'em. Save yourself a lot of headaches, and just let things play out. Thank you. Vjmlhds 23:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

First of all, you guys are the ones forcing your views onto the pages. You’re saying that there’s no proof that the belts have been unified, yet that is completely false. WWE.com has articles all over it talking about the unification of the titles. Also, there has been no consensus reached on this topic. It’s 4 people having a conversation. I’ve provided a lot more proof to back up my side of this. You guys are the ones that are going by one source. Go look at the most recent post I made on the talk page. I’m just going by the precedence that has already been set 13 years ago. You are the ones who now want to change the protocol that we used in a similar situation. OldSkool01 (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

OldSkool01,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 05:53, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hi, on the subject of the colon - if you feel the name should still have the colon in it, you'll need to start a requested move or even an WP:RFC to get better consensus on changing the article name. As long as the article itself doesn't use the colon, neither should any links to the article. Thanks! — Czello ^(music) 09:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I’ll do that right now. OldSkool01 (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WWE_pay-per-view_and_livestreaming_supercards#Most_pay-per-view_matches

"Undid revision 1158882046 by TheAY1986 (talk) Even if you’re correct, that’s still OR. You need to provide a RS that has the correct numbers"

What do you mean with OR and RS?

I made my own list on my computer and the numbers differ significantly from those on the Wikipedia page:

- I found out, that IWDB lists WWE Global Warning Tour 2002 as a PPV, which bringst Randy Orton's PPV Matches to a total of 181.
- IWDB lists all Dark and Pre-Show Matches as PPV-Match, but if you write in the article 'Only the actual pay-per-view matches are counted, no pre-show or dark matches', then the list must be adjusted.
- We need to consider if the Networks exclusive events (i.e. the NXT events) should be included in the list, because they have an impact on Kofi Kingston's number of matches. Without them, Kofi only has 116.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheAY1986 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

TheAY1986 OR means Original Research, which is exactly what you did by creating your own list. I’ve done my own original research many times for a ton of Wikipedia articles that have inaccurate information, but my research doesn’t count because unfortunately neither you nor I are considered RS (reliable sources). Here is a list of Wikipedia’s reliable sources as it pertains to pro wrestling. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources OldSkool01 (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you, I was not yet aware of this. But IWDB is listed under 'Limited reliable sources' and there stands: "Use with caution, mainly for uncontroversial claims such as the attendance of the event, as these sites do not have proven fact checking." and also "Only reliable for match results, and not for other BLP information." while for example, cagematch is listed under 'unproven sources' and listed 18 PPV Matches for Randy Orton:

Matches « Randy Orton « Wrestler-Datenbank « CAGEMATCH - The Internet Wrestling Database

So what should be done with it now? Would it then make more sense to leave out the category on this page? TheAY1986 (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sry I mean 180 PPV Matches for Randy Orton TheAY1986 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need to remove it. It’s been a part of the page for years. The only options there are is if we can find a RS that has the accurate PPV match stats, or try contacting IWDB, or another site that lists PPV matches, and ask them to correct it. OldSkool01 (talk) 15:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I would suggest the following as a solution:

We change the headline to 'Most pay-per-view and livestreaming supercard matches', remove the footnote that dark matches etc. are not counted and mention that there are conflicting sources in the data, or that the data may not be 100% accurate. (e.g. something like "The list refers to data from The Internet Wrestling Database and may differ from the actual number of matches.")

I think this is a good solution to the problem. I would also post the suggestion again on the talk page of the article. TheAY1986 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at He-Man shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Seasider53 (talk) 18:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider53: As I wrote on the He-Man talk page, are you serious? I was told to include links to reliable sources, specifically from an official Mattel site. And that’s exactly what I did on my last edit. I included a link to MattyCollector.com. So why was it reverted? OldSkool01 (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Seasider53 (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider53: Buddy, I’ve been on WP way longer than you have. Lol This isn’t my first go around when it comes to arguing what is right and fair. You’ve taken it upon yourself to decide which sites are reliable and which ones are not. Show me a list of which Masters Of The Universe sites are an RS and which ones are not. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for eight more years than you, unless you also have old accounts. Seasider53 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do. I first started in ‘05 on wrestling sites. Been using this name since ‘14. OldSkool01 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. You should have known better then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Known better? Yeah. I do know better. I know that less than a handful of editors on this page have taken it upon themselves to decide which sites are and are not a reliable source. I’ve asked to see a list of He-Man related sites that are considered RS that can be used, but apparently no such list exists. I was even told to include an official Mattel site as a source, I did that, but nope, they decided that site is not good enough either. So where are the goal posts moved to now? OldSkool01 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really judge. There is one thing I've noticed, though, which may be worth pointing out. The edit summary of Special:Diff/1162537600 says "Doesn’t get more reliable than that" referring to an archived primary source. This seems to be at odds with WP:PSTS, so it's at very least reasonable to have a talk page discussion about the topic. Or perhaps an RfC even. If only the whole debate wasn't about something unimportant as a fictional superhero's biography... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

”something as unimportant as a fictional superhero’s biography”. You’re kidding me, right? Wikipedia is full of hundreds (maybe thousands) of pages that are dedicated to fictional characters. You can’t be serious. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OldSkool01, if this sounds like kidding to you, it's time to leave a bubble. There are many pages, all biographies about living people (BLP) included, which are more important to get right than a fictional superhero's biography. This is, for example, because inaccurate information on these pages can ruin people's lives. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I’m curious how I can be blocked for the 3RR rule when, and correct me if I’m wrong, I would have needed to make a revert 4 times in a 24 hour period in order to be blocked. If that is accurate, show me where the exact 24 hour window is where I made 4 reverts. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't mentioned the three-revert rule anywhere. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (He-Man) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

dawg can you stop reverting the WWE Royal Rumble 2024 ppv/ple from the WWE ppvs wiki? it's getting annoying like go breathe air, also it ain't no mf conspiracy the royal rumble will always happen every year it ain't no rumor also if you use yo head and know some Math it's obvious that the event is gonna be on January 27, 2024, we def are close to the location reveal because they always reveal the city that the royal rumble is gonna be hosted at around this period of time, so stop removing it bro i just added the event then someone else or me is gonna make the Royal Rumble 2024 wiki and add it to the WWE ppvs wiki, and when the city and stadium/arena are reveal they are gonna add it as well. you also did this with Crown Jewel when it's obvious it's gonna be that event on November 4, like I said it no prediction it's just common sense, the WWE ain't gonna make a new Saudi Arabia show. WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 13:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I’m not the one that removed it last. You’re talking to the wrong guy. Look at the recent edit history. Second of all, just because something takes place at the same time every year, doesn’t mean it’s guaranteed to always take place at the same exact time. Look at SummerSlam for example. It’s been an August tradition since the beginning in 1988, and then last year for the first time it took place in July. Point being don’t list anything without including a reliable source that confirms it first. OldSkool01 (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it has been confirmed by the news from Florida, but the city is still not confirmed nor the venue. WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then provide the source that says it. Also, I saw your little comment about me when you reposted it. If you noticed, again, I’m not the one who reverted your edit. So go ahead and send that editor the same drawn out message you sent me. OldSkool01 (talk) 20:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bet WrestleLuxury Wiki (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean? OldSkool01 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

OldSkool01,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Mann Mann (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

See Replacing Current and Currently with As of --Mann Mann (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]