Hi, my name is Michael Parks and I am a student at FIU in Miami, Florida. My current college project involves me, and those who i find to help me, redo the "Bert Oliva" page. I was hoping that you could help because i see that you have helped out with Tony Robbins, and Bert Oliva is like the 'Latin' Tony Robbins...

Well I barely get all these wikipedia rules so if you could somehow help that would be greatly appreciated! The page can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michaelparks/Bert_Oliva

Thank you very much for all of your help! --Michaelparks (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll be looking into that second article sometime this week. I think the history on pro wrestling article is nicely writted, although I bet some people complain about it being relatively unsourced. If I find anytihng to help it out, I will. Thanks for the ideas and the comments.--ProtoWolf 03:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's all there is to it. Part of the wikipedia mantra on FA's is that if it can survive AfD it can become a featured article and the idea behind making CM Punk an FA started back in September of last year because, unlike articles such as Bret Hart or The Undertaker, this was a significantly less important and visible wrestler. Most attempts to make the article passionate would be seen as NPOV violations and would really be trying to make small things seem large when it's not the point of the article - has he been a world champion? Yes. Has he been a world champion in a television federation? No.

There is no such thing as an "FA that shouldn't be" because an FA does not judge the topic, only the article. If FA's were judged by topic no one would spend time making featured articles on The Bus Uncle, Infinite Monkey Theorem or Japanese Toilet. Noticeably different from those article is that the Punk article is a BLP and as a BLP must adhere strongly to neutrality.

Could the prose be written better? Probably but I specifically can not see how without losing information or really adding things equivalent to weasel words in the article. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note Montreal Screwjob has yet to be today's featured article. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you alternate your signature I can't read the L's on your signature.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 19:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good verse.--Hornetman16 ^(talk) 01:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm supposed to shit myself over what? yeah it's "nice" but dances on the border of being Original Research and has other issues that with the likes of Peacock terms. An example - your interpretation that Orton's participation in the Elimination Chamber showed that he was ready to be a main eventer, that's a subjective judgement - you can't say ALL participants in ALL Elimination Chambers have shown themselves to be ready to main event (Chris Masters??) nor does being in a high profile match always mean that you are ready. It's your interpretation, but this is an encylopedia it's not a wrestling profile site. Look I'm not saying this to be a bitch but from experience of putting articles up for GA or seen other wrestling related articles fail GA because they don't conform to the Wikipedia standards. MPJ-DK 04:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please comment on which image you would prefer to be featured in the infobox on John Cena's page. Thanks.-- Kip Smithers 22:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the book is basically a longer, more detailed version of the wrestlecrap website which features 2-3 different items a week (or is it month right now?) it does deal with the way the WWE's "family oriented" gimmicks lead to some HORRIBLE ideas (T.L. Hopper the wrestling plumber comes to mind) it also deals with the whole "Crash TV" start with the use of profanity and sex etc although it's the last chapter and not as informative as some of the other chapters.

It's informative and hilarious - and I've used it as a reference more than once.

As for Randy Orton - my main point isn't that I disliked the way you wrote it, I'm just speaking from the feedback I've personally gotten when involved in the "Good Article" process and stuff like that. And frankly I'm not very impressed with a lot of the wrestling articles and not totally surprised that most see them as a joke - I just try in my own way to improve articles one by one. MPJ-DK 19:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the 80s book - I don't have a scanner and I'm not sure that's even legal as the WWE still owns the copyright to those pictures. MPJ-DK 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're interested in reading more about the WrestleCrap book I found a limited preview on google books that has actual pages from it. Check it out if you want to know more http://books.google.com/books?id=50EU6leHbLoC&pg=PA2&ots=BIqo4Qw9ai&dq=wrestlecrap&sig=VtUGEYb9O-TGY5rvlP8gTnjn87I#PPA148,M1

How 'bout adding in the 2007 section a title of "The Legend Killer" or something like that. Because of the legends he's faced this year. Just a suggestion... --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I thought it might be a good suggestion (since you added some handy titles to the article); but I'll check to see if might work or not. Thanks for letting me know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look around the 1998 section and come back to you with suitable refefrences. Davnel03 08:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it doesn't say anything specific about the Austin/McMahon fight, but it gives you pretty interesting information that could help with the article:

UNDERNEATH IS COPIED FROM THE BOOK - HOPE IT HELPS YOU! :)

Stone Cold & Shooting the Bird - pg 273

“

Looking back, the storyline itself was relatively simple by extremely effective. WWE developed a feud between Stone Cold Steve Austin and Vince McMahon. Vince wanted to bring Tyson in as a world-class athlete to shake things up. Austin took exception. All the buzz around Tyson upped the excitement level exponentially. Even to this day, as I go back and look at it, they set the angle up beautifully. They wove in enough reality to get the audience to that important point where they would suspend disbelief. To this day, when I see it, it feels real. This wasn't a storyline that appealed to a twelve-year-old kid. This was aimed at young males in the workforce, people who'd be upset at being passed over for a promotion, people who'd resent their boss, who had something to prove. It appealed to fans who wished they could spit in their boss's eye. One of the keys to the angle's success was Vince McMahon's decision to put himself out there as the owner of the company, something he hadn't been willing to do until now. And they couldn't have picked a better guy than Mike Tyson to give their show an edge. Tyson had edge, he was dangerous - times ten. The Pay-Per-View helped Steve Austin launch his bad-ass, rattlesnake character to the moon. Everybody wanted to see a wrestler stand up to Tyson and put him in his place, and there was nobody better to pull that off than Steve Austin. Once I saw the tape, I knew we were in deep shit.

”

That's it for that part of the chapter, Bischoff then goes onto talk about the post WrestleMania XIV Raw ratings bump. If you really want me to write up that section on here, then I will. Nethertheless, I hope the above helps you. Davnel03 17:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you manage to use that paragraph anywhere? If you need anything else, just ask. Davnel03 16:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't exactly "rule", just thought it was a cool name (since I'm a skater). I try my best to help out. Just want to do a good job. And I may take your offer on that sentence or two. P.S. Why do you think I go by "ThinkBlue"? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were meant to clean things up and appeal more to the manual of style. So, I don't know what you're getting at by saying that what I did made things look "dumbed down!" TMC1982 12:44 a.m., 8 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMC1982 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out... Really, am I? I can't be? **Sigh...** Davnel03 07:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, thanks for including my ref in the History of professional wrestling page. Oh, also, I don't own that "Are We There Yet" book. According to the Library page, Naha does, so you're going to have to ask her about the information you need. Thanks, Davnel03 08:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it was really added by someone else, well a vandal. The edit(s) were reverted about a minute later, and was blocked for 24 hours. Anway if you need to know any more little references to put in the history of professional wrestling article, just give me a shout and I'll try and get it. :) Davnel03 16:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You get 4 warnings (depending on the severity of the 1st vandalism), then you get blocked if you continue to vandalise. In this case, the user/IP was blocked for 24 hours (see here). Davnel03 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, but the list has to be cut off somewhere. Otherwise, it would have to be a list of every professional wrestler who's ever lived, since they all die at some point. So, to avoid that, there has to be an "arbitary" cut-off point, and that's what gets people ruffled.

If you want to create the list yourself in the mainspace, however you want, feel free. You can copy and paste what I have in my user-space and add whatever you want to it. I wouldn't be offended. Skudrafan1 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article - it looks pretty good! I suggest you try and find somme reviews of the book and possibly add a review section to the article. Also, sources are needed desperately, so hopefully some reviews could add to the references. Good so far! Davnel03 09:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Screw, jsut letting you know I typed up the information you wanted re: Randy Orton, and it is on my talk page. Hope this helps :) --Naha|^(talk) 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The paragraph was interesting, but all it confirms is that the two were good friends.--Screwball23 talk 22:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Your work here is very appreciated. Keep up the good work. Zenlax 12:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 6 - October 13 is N/A. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 14. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 14 - October 20 is N/A. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 21. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 21 - October 27 is Hulk Hogan. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for October 28 - November 3 is Bobby Eaton . Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, October 28. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

Hello! The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for November 4 - November 10 is Adam Copeland. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, November 11. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! | Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! You are receiving this notification because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you no longer wish to receive this notice, then please add your name to this list.

The November 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Week The Pro Wrestling Collaboration of the Week for November 11 - November 17 is World Wrestling Entertainment. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, November 18. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! From the Editor Welcome to the inaugural edition of the WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter! I hope this will be a good source of news to those people interested in what's happening around our pro wrestlimg community. I plan to release it every Sunday. This newsletter will just be a way to get the community announcements to people who don't have the time to check the mesageboards, as well that to those just curious about the news. The newsleter will consist of a project news section (to do with what's happening on Wikipedia), and a current events section (relating to news in the "real world"). The newslette will also contain the Collaboration of the Week announcement. That's all. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please post them at this talk page. ~ The Chronic Contributors to this Issue: Gavyn Sykes — LAX — Nahallac Silverwinds — The Chronic — The Hybrid

Scorpion, some of your comment at the FAC came across to me as very uncivil. There was no need for that rant. Sorry, but I've put a huge amount of effort into that article, and don't deserve to get comments like that. Davnel03 16:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This comment means nothing to me: the rest is probably just as horrendous. How do you know if you haven't read it. If you don't put specific examples of where it is "horrendous" I cannot improve the article. Davnel03 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your coments about the lead. Would you possibly consider Supporting the article if you have any other comments to make. Thanks. Davnel03 17:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Davnel03 16:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for them comments! I have commented back. You will probably want to leave more comments and problems that probably have arisen from the changes. Do you mind if we work through the whole of the article, because I can see that the article is being improved step-by-step. If so, is there any chance you could leave comments on the 2nd feud, which is the Bret/Hakushi feud. I might be wrong, but am I right in saying that the "Event" section probably doesn't pose many problems, just the "Background" section? Thanks again!! :) Davnel03 18:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could have a look at my comments? Thanks, Davnel03 22:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this because because you are listed as a member of the Professional Wrestling WikiProject. If you would rather receive a notification of the newsletter sent to you, please add your name to this list. If you no longer wish to receive any notice of the newsletter, please add your name to this list.

Previous Issue | The Wikipedia: WikiProject Professional Wrestling Newsletter | Next Issue
Delivered: 18:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC) by MiszaBot (talk)

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XI — February 24, 2008

Project News AJPW Unified World Tag Team Championship failed its Featured list nomination. Its nomination page can be found here. Royal Rumble (2005) and Over the Edge (1998) have been listed for Peer review. Please review this article and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Their peer reviews can be found here and here. No Way Out (2004) and Torrie Wilson have been elevated to Good article status. Don Kent (wrestler), Unforgiven (2004), Lisa Marie Varon, SummerSlam (1994), Ricky Banderas, New Year's Revolution (2007) and Jos LeDuc are currently Good article candidates. This newsletter will now be issued every other week, per the discussion here. Current Events Former TNA professional wrestler Chris Harris has officially signed with World Wrestling Entertainment, as confirmed by himself in his personal website. Ron Killings is still being reported as having signed a WWE contract. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for his name to be continually added to the WWE Roster article, and information about his return being added to his article. There is also, apparently, an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick. Recent SmackDown! Taping spoilers indicate that he debuted under the name Kwik Killings in a Dark match. No reliable source has reported this as of now, however. Bobby Lashley has been released by WWE as of February 4 On February 7, WWE announced that it would cease it's affiliation with Ohio Valley Wrestling. Also on February 7, WWE announced that SmackDown would be leaving The CW at the end of the 2007-2008 Television Season. Articles for Deletion Current: Kept: Category:Jillian Hall albums; Velvet Sky. Deleted: Mike Posey; Randy Dodge; The Pit Bulls; Category:WrestleMania venues; WWE Byte This!. Collaboration of the Week The monthly featured article collaboration for February 24 through March 2 is Mr. Kennedy. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 2. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved!

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 338 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 36 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. LAX has been promoted to admin status. His RfA can be seen here. On the calendar: Feb. 17 - WWE presents No Way Out Feb. 24 - Steelerfan-94's birthday Feb. 28 - Zenlax's birthday Mar. 9 - TNA presents Destination X Mar. 25 - Kelan's birthday Mar. 26 - Govvy's birthday Mar. 30 - WWE presents WrestleMania XXIV Member Interview This week's interviewees are Kris Classic (link) and Alex Roggio (link). Next week's interviewees are D.M.N. and 3bulletproof16. Submit a question to ask them here. 3bulletproof16 has confirmed that he will indeed be taking part in the interview, even though he has retired. Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references). From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: Alex Roggio (talk · contribs) GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) Gavyn Sykes (talk · contribs) iMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) Nahallac Silverwinds (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) S-pac54 (talk · contribs) The Chronic (talk · contribs) The Hybrid (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) TJ Spyke (talk · contribs) Truco9311 (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XII — March 9, 2008

Project News No Way Out (2004) failed its nomination for Featured Article status; its nomination can be found here. List of WCW Hardcore Champions has been nominated for Featured list status; its nomination can be found here. Royal Rumble (2005), Over the Edge (1998), and Vengeance (2005) have been listed for Peer review. Please review these articles and make suggestions for how they can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Their peer reviews can be found here, here and here. Dawn Marie Psaltis, Lisa Marie Varon, and Unforgiven (2004) have been elevated to Good article status. Don Kent (wrestler), Jos LeDuc, New Year's Revolution (2007), Ricky Banderas, SummerSlam (1994), SummerSlam (2007), No Way Out (2007) and Unforgiven (2005) are currently Good article candidates. WikiProject Professional wrestling will be the Featured Wikiproject in next week's edition of the Signpost. LAX, iMatthew, and Nikki311 will answer questions relating to the project here. Current Events Ron Killings is still being reported as having signed a WWE contract. As there is no reliable source for anything of the sort, be prepared for his name to be continually added to the WWE Roster article, and information about his return being added to his article. There is also, apparently, an audio interview with Killings where he states he will be returning to WWE with his old K-Kwik gimmick. Recent SmackDown! taping spoilers indicate that Killings has already debuted under the name Kwik Killings in a Dark match. However, no reliable source for this information has been found yet. Articles for Deletion Current: NWA Australian Championship. Kept: Lena Yada, Vicious and Delicious. Deleted: Callum Sprit, WWE Smackdown vs. Raw 2009, Road to WrestleMania Tournament, Gary Mei. Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for March 3 through March 16 is Ric Flair. Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next article for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 16. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Member Interview This week's interviewees are D.M.N. (link) and 3bulletproof16 (link). Next week's interviewees are FamicomJL and Naha. Submit a question to ask them here.

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 351 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 40 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: Mar. 9 - TNA presents Destination X Mar. 25 - Kelan's birthday Mar. 26 - Govvy's birthday Mar. 30 - WWE presents WrestleMania XXIV Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has dropped by 45 while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references). From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: iMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) Nahallac Silverwinds (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Truco9311 (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XIII — March 23, 2008

Project News No Way Out (2004) has been renominated for Featured Article status; its nomination can be found here. List of WCW Hardcore Champions has been nominated for Featured list status; its nomination can be found here. SummerSlam (2000) has been listed for Peer review. Please review this article and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. It's peer reviews can be found here. Ricky Banderas and SummerSlam (1994) have been elevated to Good article status. Ion Croitoru, Jos LeDuc, New Year's Revolution (2007), SummerSlam (2007), No Way Out (2007), Unforgiven (2005), WrestleMania X, Jeff Hardy, and Matt Hardy are currently Good article candidates. WikiProject Professional wrestling was the Featured Wikiproject in last week's edition of the Signpost. TJ Spyke, iMatthew, and Nikki311 have answered questions relating to the project here. Current Events Jeff Hardy was suspended by WWE for 60 days on March 11 for violating WWE's Substance Abuse and Drug Policy. On March 14, he lost his home in, Cameron, North Carolina, late friday night due to a fire. Fire Department officials currently cannot confirm what was the cause of the fire. Reports also say that Jeff's brother, Matt Hardy, saw smoke coming out of Jeff's house. RAW Commentator, Jim Ross, reports on his blog, "He lost essentially every thing he had and most sadly his dog". On March 14, Vince McMahon was honored into the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Triple H: King of Kings-There is Only One, a WWE Home Video DVD, will be released on March 25 2008. Articles for Deletion Current: Steven Galvan Kept: Deleted: Bryant Balmaceda, NWA Australian Championship, List of professional wrestling stables and tag teams. Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for March 16 through March 30 is Big Show. The featured article collaboration is Kurt Angle. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, March 30. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Member Interview This week's interviewees are FamicomJL (link) and Naha (link). Next week's interviewees are Endlessdan and S-pac54. Submit a question to ask them here.

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 356 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 37 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: Mar. 25 - Kelan's birthday Mar. 26 - Govvy's birthday Mar. 29 - NimiTize's birthday Mar. 30 - WWE presents WrestleMania XXIV Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references). From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: iMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) NimiTize (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XIV — April 6, 2008

Project News SummerSlam (2007) (link) has been nominated for Featured Article status. Triple H has failed its Featured Article nomination. Its nom page can be found here. List of WCW Hardcore Champions has passed its Featured list nomination; its nomination can be found here. Backlash (2004) has been listed for Peer review. Please review these articles and make suggestions for how it can be improved in preparation for a Good article nomination. Its peer review can be found here. Ion Croitoru, Jos LeDuc, New Year's Revolution (2007), No Way Out (2007), SummerSlam (2007), Unforgiven (2005), and WrestleMania X have been elevated to Good article status. Brian Kendrick, Brock Lesnar, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Randy Orton, Stacy Keibler, and Vengeance (2005) are currently Good article candidates. Current Events At WrestleMania XXIV, Shawn Michaels defeated Ric Flair after executing the Sweet Chin Music, which as a result, meant that Ric Flair was forced to retire from professional wrestling. The next night, at Flair's retirement ceremony on Raw, Triple H congratulated Flair for his 35 year career, and brought out retired and current superstars to thank him. Michaels, and the whole WWE roster came out later to thank him as well. The Undertaker defeated Edge to become the new World Heavyweight Champion forcing him to submit to the Gogoplata. During the pyro celebration for Undertaker's 16-0 streak, a freak accident occurred just before WrestleMania went off-air. During the pryo shooting to the entrance stage, a firework went to the upper-level section of the crowd on top. Forty-five fans were injured, and currently, WWE is trying to investigate what was the cause of the pyrotechnic malfunction Cryme Tyme returned to WWE on March 31, during Raw, defeating Lance Cade and Trevor Murdoch. Matt Hardy also returned on Raw, attacking Randy Orton from behind, and later having a match with Orton. Articles for Deletion Current: World Wrestling Professionals Kept: Dark Angel (wrestler) Deleted: Steven Galvan, A.W. Bulldog (wrestler), The Big Shemi, Ananzi (wrestler), Akilah (wrestler), Crybaby (wrestler), Don't Question My Heart Collaboration of the Week The article collaborations for March 30 through April 13 are Bash at the Beach (1996) and Mae Young. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, April 13. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Member Interview This week's interviewees are Endlessdan (link) and S-pac54 (link). Next week's interviewees are Straight Edge PXK and iMatthew. Submit a question to ask them here.

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 363 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 39 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: 13 - TNA presents Lockdown 14 - ThinkBlue's birthday 20 - Adamaniac's and Killswitch Engage's birthdays 27 - WWE presents Backlash Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references). From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: iMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) RkOrton (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Zenlax (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Hello! I see that you have a newsletter interview scheduled for a future edition of the newsletter. Due to the fact that we have started the Editor of the week, we will stop the interviews. The EOTW will be interviewed instead. To be fair, you have one week to answer the questions in your interview, as all of the interviews will go out in next week's newsletter. Cheers! iMatthew 2008 16:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	The Terrorism WikiProject April 2008 Newsletter
News 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack was made a Featured Article Omar Khadr has an ongoing peer review as it begins the slow crawl towards Featured Article status Trials have begun this month in the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, Benbrika affair and 2006 Toronto terrorism case, each article could use a good vetting, and the articles on specific alleged terrorists are desperately in need of some clean-up. Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein had his case overturned by the Iraqi courts and was ordered released, although the US military says they will not release him. China announced that they had disrupted a plot targeting the 2008 Summer Olympics, while detractors claim it was fabricated. The bail hearing for Abdullah Khadr, fighting extradition to the United States, is scheduled for April 29 Former Turkish Member of Parliament Leyla Zana is sentenced to two years imprisonment for praising Abdullah Öcalan. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list needs votes on whether or not it should be kept on Wikipedia.
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XV — April 20, 2008

Project News SummerSlam (2007) has failed its Featured Article nomination; the discussion can be found here. Jeff Hardy has been elevated to Good article status. Acolytes Protection Agency, Brian Kendrick, Brock Lesnar, Matt Hardy, Money Inc., Over the Edge (1999), Randy Orton, Stacy Keibler, and Vengeance (2005) are currently Good article candidates. Events WWE has invited Democrats running for president, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, to Raw to settle their differences in a wrestling match. The invitation video can be found here. On the April 21 edition of Raw, the King of the Ring tournament will return for one night only. The entire tournament will take place on Raw. Mick Foley made a appearance in the new film, Anamorph. Articles for Deletion Current: PJ Black (wrestler), The Lizard (wrestler). Kept: Juggernaut (wrestler), World Wrestling Professionals, List of TNA tournaments, Shaun Simpson Deleted: Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last newsletter, the number of stub articles has continued to drop, while the total number of wrestling articles continues to grow. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Please check it out and see what you can help with (even if you can only add a few details or a couple of references). Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 1 6 5 12 FL 1 13 14 GA 4 9 30 43 B 1 11 49 199 260 Start 2 51 217 2300 2570 Stub 1 24 604 629 Assessed 3 68 306 3151 3528 Total 3 68 306 3152 3533

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 374 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 41 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: Apr. 27 - WWE presents Backlash (2008) May 4 - S-pac54's birthday May 8 - The Chronic's birthday May 11 - Stevenplunkett's birthday and TNA presents Sacrifice Collaboration of the Week The article collaborations for April 13 through April 27 are World Wrestling Entertainment and Booker T. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, April 13. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Member Interview Next week we will start the Editor of the Week. This will take the place of the Member Interviews. The EOTW will be given their own interview instead. To be fair, this week we will post all of the interviews that were on the schedule. Click the link next to the user's name to see their interview: Straight Edge PXK (link) iMatthew (link) Truco-X (link) Derrty2033 (link) MarcK (link) Technogreek43 (link) RkOrton (link) From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) iMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) RkOrton (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XVI — May 4, 2008

Project News Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, Money Inc., and Vengeance (2005) have been elevated to Good article status. Acolytes Protection Agency, Backlash (2006), Brian Kendrick, Brock Lesnar, Judgment Day (2005), Over the Edge (1999), Randy Orton, Royal Rumble (2005), Stacy Keibler, and Survivor Series (2005) are currently Good article candidates. Current Events William Regal won the King of the Ring tournament on the April 21 edition of Raw. Senators Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain, made special appearance on Raw, via the titantron to address the Raw fans. During Backlash, Triple H became the new WWE Champion by defeating Randy Orton. Matt Hardy defeated MVP and became the new United States Champion. The Undertaker had the World Heavyweight Championship taken from him on the May 2 episode of SmackDown!. Articles for Deletion Current: Giovanni picarazzi. Kept: Deleted: PJ Black (wrestler), The Lizard (wrestler), Xterminator (wrestler), The Playa (wrestler), Kalahari Boerboel (wrestler), InterMat. Professional Wrestling Article Stats Since the last issue, the number of stub articles has decreased again. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 5 15 21 GA 4 11 31 47 B 1 12 51 199 265 Start 2 51 220 2316 2593 Stub 1 23 609 629 Assessed 3 69 313 3175 3559 Total 3 69 312 3173 3559

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 377 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 37 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: 4 - S-pac54's birthday 8 - The Chronic's birthday 11 - Stevenplunkett's birthday and TNA presents Sacrifice 18 - WWE presents Judgment Day 18 - Self Preteder's birthday 19 - Frenchbreadpizza's birthday 24 - Unopeneddoor's birthday Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for April 27 through May 11 is National Wrestling Alliance. The featured article collaboration is Amy Dumas. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 11. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Editor of the Week Welcome to the Editor of the Week! Our first editor of the week is Nikki311, who won with 6 votes. The runner-up, LAX came in second with 3 votes. Nikki311's award page can be found here. Congratulations Nikki! From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: GaryColemanFan (talk · contribs) iMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) RkOrton (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XVII — May 18, 2008

Project News Brian Kendrick, Brock Lesnar, Stacy Keibler, Randy Orton, and Acolytes Protection Agency have been elevated to Good article status. Over the Edge (1999) failed its Good article nomination, but has been reassessed here. Backlash (2006), Backlash (2007), Insane Clown Posse, Judgment Day (2005), Judgment Day (2007), One Night Stand (2007), Royal Rumble (2005), Survivor Series (2005), The Great American Bash (2007), The Rock (entertainer) and Unforgiven (2006) are currently Good article candidates. Current Events Torrie Wilson was released by WWE on May 8. L.A.X. won the vacated TNA World Tag Team Championship as a result of defeating Team 3D in the Deuces Wild tournament final at TNA Sacrifice. Also at TNA Sacrifice, Samoa Joe defeated Scott Steiner and Kaz to retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship. During WWE Backlash, Triple H, The Miz and John Morrison, and Mickie James retained the WWE Championship, WWE Tag Team Championship, and WWE Women's Championship, respectively. Articles for Deletion Current: Africa Wrestling Alliance, International Wrestling Federation (South Africa), Joseph Carl Bailey, Junior. Kept: TNA 2005 Super X Cup Tournament, TNA 2006 World X Cup Tournament. Redirected: Deuces Wild Tournament, Meltdown: The Music of TNA Wrestling Vol.2. Deleted: Sean Creed, Giovanni picarazzi, Cf Turbo, Mother's Day Massacre (2008), Boerseun (wrestler), Nizaam Hartley, The Taxidriver (wrestler), Scorpion Kruger (wrestler), The Blacksmith (wrestler), RingDivas Womens Wrestling, Parrow Civic Centre, Nightmare (wrestler), Pro Wrestling Alliance: Africa, Steve Eden (wrestler). Professional Wrestling Article Stats The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 5 15 21 GA 4 12 34 50 B 1 13 55 203 272 Start 2 52 220 2328 2604 Stub 1 23 606 628 Assessed 3 71 317 3189 3580 Total 3 71 317 3189 3580

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 385 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 38 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: 18 - WWE presents Judgment Day; Self Preteder's birthday 19 - Frenchbreadpizza's birthday 24 - Unopeneddoor's birthday 1 - WWE presents One Night Stand 8 - TNA presents Slammiversary Collaboration of the Week The article collaborations for May 11 through May 24 are Chris Benoit double murder and suicide and John Layfield. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, May 25. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Editor of the Week Our second editor of the week is GaryColemanFan, who won with 4 votes. The runner-up, D.M.N., came in second with 3 votes. GaryColemanFan's award page and interview can be found here. Congratulations! The interview portion of the award page was just recently added. To see Nikki311's interview, go to her award page here From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: IMatthew (talk · contribs) LAX (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XVIII — June 1, 2008

Project News Backlash (2006), Insane Clown Posse, Judgment Day (2005), Judgment Day (2007), Royal Rumble (2005), and Survivor Series (2005) have been elevated to Good Article status. SummerSlam (2007) (link) and SummerSlam (1988) (link) have been nominated for Featured Article status. Backlash (2007), One Night Stand (2007), Paul London, Royal Rumble (2005), The Great American Bash (2007), The Rock (entertainer) and Unforgiven (2006) are currently Good article candidates. Over the Edge (1999) failed it's Good article nomination, though, it has been reassessed here. Current Events Darren Matthews (William Regal) was suspended by WWE for 60 days for breaching the Substance Abuse and Drug Testing Policy. The 2008 WWE Draft was announced by World Wrestling Entertainment chairman, Vince McMahon, to take place on June 23 2008. At One Night Stand, Randy Orton suffered a broken collarbone during his Last man standing match with Triple H. Also, at One Night Stand, Edge won the World Heavyweight Championship in a Tables, Ladders and Chairs match defeating The Undertaker. Per the pre-match stipulation, Undertaker was kayfabe forced to leave WWE. The Month in Wrestling History May 23, 1999 - Owen Hart died in a tragic fall during Over the Edge. May 21, 2000 - Triple H defeated The Rock for the WWF Heavyweight title. May 22, 2000 - Vince Russo stripped Ric Flair of the WCW World Heavyweight Championship, and awarded it to Jeff Jarret. May 17, 2002 - "The British Bulldog" Davey Boy Smith died of a heart attack. May 19, 2004 - Ron Killings won the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. Professional Wrestling Article Stats The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 5 15 21 GA 4 15 39 58 B 1 13 57 203 274 Start 2 52 221 2331 2606 Stub 1 23 600 624 Assessed 3 71 323 3191 3588 Total 3 71 323 3191 3588

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 389 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. Based on the active members list, there are currently 37 members currently active in WikiProject Professional wrestling. NOTICE: If you are actively editing and contributing to articles under the scope of WikiProject Professional Wrestling, we suggest you add your name to the list of active members. On the calendar: 19 - Frenchbreadpizza's birthday 24 - Unopeneddoor's birthday 29 - CJMiller's birthday 1 - WWE presents One Night Stand 8 - TNA presents Slammiversary Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for May 25 through June 7 is Rick Rude. The Featured article collaboration is Carly Colón. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, June 8. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Kept: Africa Wrestling Alliance, Blood sweat and ears, List of Ring of Honor events, The Fingerpoke of Doom. Redirected: Deleted: International Wrestling Federation (South Africa), Joseph Carl Bailey, Junior, Independent Pro Wrestling Association, Crash TV, Drew Roode, WWE wins top 10. From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: IMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) ThinkBlue (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XIV — June 22, 2008

Project News SummerSlam (1988) and SummerSlam (2007) have both failed their Featured Article Candidacy's, their review pages can be found here and here, respectively. List of WWE SmackDown video game titles (link) has been nominated for Featured List status. IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship (link) has been nominated for removal as a Featured List. Paul London, SummerSlam (2004), Survivor Series (1994), and WWE SmackDown (video game series) are currently Good article candidates. Backlash (2007) (link), Unforgiven (2006) (link), The Rock (entertainer) (link), One Night Stand (2007) (link), The Great American Bash (2007) (link) and Royal Rumble (2005) (link) have been elevated to Good article status. Over the Edge (1999) has passed its reassessment and is now a good article! The article's reassessment can be found here. A pay-per-view event chronology has been added as a feature to the Wrestling event infobox, please assist the project in adding this feature to professional wrestling pay-per-view event articles. The C-Class rating has been introduced. The rating falls between articles that are more than Start class, but less than B-Class. The Month in Wrestling History June 1, 1998 - Junkyard Dog died at the age of forty-five in an automobile accident. June 2, 2003 - Freddie Blassie died at the age of eighty-five from natural causes. June 10, 1983 - Harley Race defeated Ric Flair for the NWA World Heavyweight Championship. June 13, 1982- "High Chief" Peter Maivia died of cancer at forty-seven. June 13, 1993 - Yokozuna defeated Hulk Hogan for the WWF Heavyweight title. June 19 2002 - AJ Styles became the first TNA X Division Champion. Professional Wrestling Article Stats The number of stub articles has decreased to its lowest level since the project began its focus on improving them. The goal is to get the number below 600, and we're getting close. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 5 15 21 GA 5 17 42 64 B 1 13 67 206 287 C 1 7 36 44 Start 2 53 211 2312 2578 Stub 1 24 604 629 Assessed 3 74 333 3218 3628 Total 3 74 333 3218 3628

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 389 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. On the calendar: 8 - TNA presents Slammiversary 10 - Chandlerjoeyross's birthday 10 - King Gemini's birthday 11 - Wweisreal's birthday 20 - Umdunno's birthday Current Events James Yun was suspended for 30 days for violating WWE's Wellness Policy. Vince McMahon was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award at the Promax|BDA Conference for "for his remarkable accomplishments and innovations in global marketing, advertising and promotion." WWE is currently holding "Million Dollar Mania", where they give out prize money totalling $1 million on Raw to viewers watching the show at home. Collaboration of the Week The article collaboration for June 22 through July 5 is James Yun. The Featured article collaboration is Candice Michelle . Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on Sunday, July 5. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Mark Beale. Kept: Triplemania, Antonio Peña. Redirected: Deleted: All Action Wrestling. From the Editors Contributors to this Issue: iMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

The WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter Issue XX — July 6, 2008

Thank you for reading WikiProject Professional Wrestling's 20th Newsletter Edition

Project News December to Dismember (2006) is currently under Featured Article review (link). Starrcade (1983) has failed its Featured Article nomination (link). List of WWE SmackDown video game titles has been elevated to Featured List status (link). IWGP Junior Heavyweight Championship has been removed as a Featured List (link). Faces of Fear (link), Maria Kanellis (link), Paul London (link), Survivor Series (1994) (link), The Mega Bucks (link) and WWE SmackDown (video game series) (link) have been elevated to Good article status. Backlash (2003), Dark Angel (wrestler), Juggernaut (wrestler), SummerSlam (1988), SummerSlam (2004), and Survivor Series (2004) are currently Good article candidates. Lockdown (2008) (link) and Survivor Series (2007) (link) are currently under Peer Review. Category:Vengeance is being discussed at WP:CFD for renaming, it's discussion page can be found here. The C-Class rating has been introduced. The rating falls between articles that are more than Start-Class, but less than B-Class. Immediately put into effect, our project has begun use of the List-Class rating. The List-Class rating is for list articles that are of less quality than B-Class articles. Current Events At Night of Champions: Mark Henry became the new ECW Champion. Kofi Kingston won the WWE Intercontinental Championship. Cody Rhodes turned on Hardcore Holly to capture the World Tag Team Championship with Ted DiBiase. On June 30, CM Punk won the World Heavyweight Championship on Raw. Trevor Murdoch was released from WWE on July 3. The Month in Wrestling History June 24, 2001 - Edge defeated Kurt Angle in the finals of the 2001 King of the Ring. June 26, 1992 - Buddy Rogers died of a stroke at age 71. June 28, 1999 - Steve Austin defeated The Undertaker for the WWF Heavyweight title. July 2, 1969 - "Iron" Mike DiBiase died of a heart attack in the ring. July 3, 2001 - AJ Styles and Jerry Lynn become the first NWA World Tag Team Champions under the ownership of TNA, via winning a tournament final. Professional Wrestling Article Stats Our goal is to get the number of Stub-Class articles below 600. The current count is 631. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help expand and/or source an article or two. A list has been placed on the stub article subpage of stub articles of well-known wrestlers that should be fairly easy to improve. Professional wrestling articles Importance Top High Mid Low Total Quality FA 2 3 5 FL 1 6 14 21 GA 5 17 45 67 B 1 14 65 202 282 C 1 10 44 55 Start 2 52 211 2310 2575 Stub 1 24 602 627 List 1 7 39 46 Assessed 3 74 335 3223 3639 Total 3 74 335 3223 3639

Member News Based on the members list, there are currently 397 members participating in WikiProject Professional wrestling. On the calendar: 29 - WWE presents Night of Champions 1 - D.M.N.'s birthday 7 - Alex Roggio's and The Hybrid's birthdays 13 - TNA presents Victory Road Collaboration of the Week The article collaborations for July 6 through July 19 are Sean Waltman and The Attitude Era. Please help to improve these articles to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia professional wrestling related article. The next articles for collaboration will be chosen on July 20. Cast your vote to select the collaboration for next week! — Nominate an article that could be greatly improved! Articles for Deletion Current: Jack Korpela, List of Ring of Honor events, List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships, Beer Money Inc., and The Badd guys. Kept: Redirected/Merged: Mark Beale, and Eric Mastrocola. Deleted: List of ECW events. From the Editors As I'm sure you noticed above, this is the 20th edition of the WikiProject Professional wrestling newsletter! It has come a long way since the first issue, and I'm sure it will only improve from here. I'd like to thank everyone reading this for continuing to read the newsletter, biweekly. I'd like to especially thank those who have helped to get the newsletter to it's 20th edition; The Hybrid, The Chronic, TJ Spyke, Alex Roggio, LAX, ThinkBlue, Nikki311, GaryColemanFan, Gavyn Sykes, D.M.N., Naha, NiciVampireHeart, SRX, Zenlax and, RkOrton. Also, lastly I'd like to thank Misza13, for sending the newsletter out for us, though his bot. His bot has to be the most important part of the process, because without it, the newsletter would not get sent to project members. I know that's a long list, but they all deserve recognition for their hard work towards the newsletter. So again, thank you to that list of people, and thank you to all of the newsletter's biweekly readers. If you have an questions, comments, or feedback about the newsletter, remember those links below. -- iMatthew T.C. Contributors to this Issue: IMatthew (talk · contribs) NiciVampireHeart (talk · contribs) SRX (talk · contribs) Discussion • Suggestions • Feedback

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ospalh (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Basically under the image use policy, we can only have images of living people that aren't copyrighted. The image you uploaded was one made by WWE themselves so we can't allow it as they hold the copyright. For getting free use WWE photos that we can use on articles, there are generally three reliable sources:

• US military websites, due to WWE's work with the troops. You can use this google search page as a guide.
• Flickr photos are also useful as long they have a compatible license attached (here are the list of compatible licenses). This Flickr search page should help you for that.
• Also if you have personally taken any photos of her in real life, you can basically submit the photo here as you are the author and you have the right to do anything with it.

Sadly I can't seem to find any from these sites myself and all the other photos on the article have been taken down for copyright reasons (someone was telling fibs about the podium photo, it was taken off a YouTube video), so sometimes it's very hard to even obtain a free use photo. I hope this helps. --  Θakster   23:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am a guy who first watched near the end of the Attitude era and quite a lot have changed since then and I suppose it's kinda mixed right now as clearly I'm not that much of a disillusioned fan to have stopped watching, yet I realised it's not the same as before. I actually don't mind the switch to TV-PG, but I do think that they have pushed the "kid-friendly" elements a little too far beyond the suspense of disbelief in areas (the recent "Little People's Court" being an example). --  Θakster   15:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have quite a few projects that I am currently working on, but I'll try and give it a look pretty soon. Nikki♥311 18:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball23, Thanks for your kind words. I looked at the bio and see a lot of references missing in the wrestling section and the political section is really a mess, although it seems accurate as far as it goes. I'll take a crack at the political section and suggest where some of the references are missing in the wrestling section. I'm a bit busy this week but I should have some time next week. Angloguy (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I can certainly help you out, though I must warn you that I haven't written a Featured Article in two years and therefore the criteria might have changed that I used to write to. I've got my exams on at the moment, but if you want to send me a message on the 25th about how far you got and whether you think you're meeting the criteria, I'll come take a look for you and see what we can do. Sound fair? Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After considerable planning, {{election}} has been created. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on the WikiProject talk page. @harej 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Screwball23, I see you're up for adoption, and I'm in the market. If ever you need advice or answers, just ask me -- any question, any time. I'd like to help however I can. Happy editing - Draeco (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be careful with negative and/or unsubstantiated information per WP:BLP. WP has become very strict about that. Otherwise, include everything verifiable that you can integrate well. If it becomes too lengthy, break out sub-articles like "Linda McMahon in the 2010 Senate Race." Such depth is a credit to WP and to your efforts. Deletionists love to axe obscure articles, but rarely will large blocks of well-written, well-cited information be deleted within an article. - Draeco (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the particular image you mentioned, it is already deleted with no link to the deletion discussion, so I don't know enough to talk about the specifics. If it was in fact a non-free image from Flickr as Fut.Perf discusses below, then he's right. - Draeco (talk) 04:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Smackdownyourvote.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWEclosingbell.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WWEClosing_Bell2.jpeg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Todayshow.JPG. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Verrazano.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Screwball23, I saw your posting somewhere complaining about the tagging of your image uploads by User:Melesse. I've looked into it a bit and I'm afraid I find Melesse is generally right. The non-free content criteria are quite strict. In particular, when you are dealing with a public person such as a US politician, we always assume we could get enough free photographs of them; it is then not possible to upload non-free photos of them simply to illustrate they have appeared on such-and-such a type of occasion. Also, with regard to File:Verrazano.jpg, you seem to have been under the misunderstanding that Flickr photographs are automatically free. In fact, most of them are not. You always need to check the licensing details on each Flickr page, which you'll find somewhere in the bottom right corner. Many Flickr photographs are "all rights reserved"; many others are "some rights reserved" with a "non-commercial use only" clause ("cc-by-nc"). Those are all off-limits for us. We can only use those that say "cc-by" or "cc-by-sa". Flickr images are virtually never "public domain", which is yet a different concept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Linda-hi-rez-7-150x150.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:McMahonmailers.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

• If you recieved this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He did nothing notable on the Texas indy scene. It's ridiculous to break up the TNA section only to get the text "Upon his departure from TNA, Hernandez worked on the Texas independent circuit throughout 2005" in there, when it can be perfectly well placed in the start of the LAX part. The first AAA section should come after LAX if you're going put it in chronological order, so that's the only thing you have on his time between Elite Guard and LAX.TheFBH (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you fully understand what is wrong with the edits. I also don't think you understand what's in the refs. First of all my main concern is with the term "PG Era" - a (as you put it) fan coined term - No where in the refs is the term used. You and I both know and cannot deny that the term is only used within the IWC. The use of the term as an official term for this "supposed" era - "supposed" is in quotation marks as I'll explain right now - is Original Research. Why? Because WWE hasn't acknowledge this as a "supposed" era. What it is to them as your reference cited is a simple change in programming. Finally TNA is irrelevant to the subject of the history of WWE and therefore deserves no mention in the article. You are not going to find heavily weighed notes of other subjects in a an article of a single subject unless it is relevant to both subjects. You can argue that the subject of WWE may be relevant to TNA but it certainly isn't the other way around. Even then, the TNA articles make no mention of WWE. If you still strongly disagree, why don't you take this up at WT:PW and let the project decide?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 01:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the jealousy argument... Listen kid you're way in over your head. Fine you wanna go? lets go. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I will back Bullet up. Consensus has been established by the project already as Bullet has indicated. If he doesn't revert it I will. !! Justa Punk !! 04:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please limit your talk page comments to discussion of the content not the contributor. Derogatory comments like these are not appropriate:

• Kbob has no idea what he's talking about[1]
• thank god this weirdo finally left the page[2]

This has already been mentioned by another editor on the same page [3] and could be construed by an Administrator as personal attacks. I hope that you can correct this and that we can work together in a harmonious way. Thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You left a message on my talk page a few days ago asking me to check out the Linda McMahon article. I've done so this afternoon, and I've got to say that the article seems quite thorough. It has tripled in bytes over the past six months, in large part due to your contributions. For the most part, I think the article is good, though perhaps some sections could be split into their own articles, especially the one on her run for Senate. Such an article would probably be justified already due to her prominent campaign, and ever more so if she should win the GOP nomination.

I have also noticed on the article's talk page that a photo of Linda on the campaign trail might be helpful. Too bad I didn't have my camera with me, because I briefly met her at a dinner in late March. If I happen to run into her again, however, I'll try to take such a photo. I can't make any promises, though. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday May 22nd, OpenPlans in Lower Manhattan Last: 03/21/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sigh... I explained it to you before. Then I told you to take it to PW if you still disagreed. PW decided it was barely notable. Then you continued to fight over. Finally, they told you to let it go. Once again, let it go. Consensus stands. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO @ how delusional you're acting...^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I remind you that WT:PW deemed the subject barely notable. If you still disagree, I invite you to restate your case at WT:PW. However please note that your continued defiance of the consensus is disruptive, which is more than enough to warrant a block. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 21:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on World Wrestling Entertainment. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Curtis23's Usalions 20:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new discussion about it at WT:PW#WWE Change in Programming so you can see that consensus is reached that the Change in Programming doesn't warrant it's own section.--Curtis23's Usalions 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you thank someone for a oppose comment?--Curtis23's Usalions 23:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although you are not in violation of 3RR, your edits to this article definitely constitute edit warring. Discussion to reach consensus needs to take place; if problems continue after that, there are obviously other steps to take. Constant reverting violates Wikipedia policy, though. Keep it real, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who's right and who's wrong. If you checked, you would see that I left the same message on his page. You need to stop with the edit war, or this will be referred to the Administrator's Noticeboard. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball, until you provide sources to prove notability you are outside WP rules with the edit you are pushing. At present what you are doing is nothing more than WP:OR. Prove what you say is true. Just saying "everyone knows it" is worth absolutely zero on Wikipedia. !! Justa Punk !! 04:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You provided no links that were reliable. Therefore it is not notable under Wikipedia rules. Individual opinion of whether or not it's notable is irrelevant. You have to prove that it's notable with reliable third party independent sources. You have failed to do that, and it's why the Project consensus is that it's not notable. You are trying to place your own opinion ahead of the rules of this encyclopedia. I also note that you are having issues with another article for similar reasons re sources AKA referencing. Get the hint - you are doing it wrong. !! Justa Punk !! 21:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I listened. You didn't. Indeed - the conversation is over and it's not my fault but yours. !! Justa Punk !! 02:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Know what you are talking about before reverting - or ask and I'll help you.Victor9876 (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently abusing the Wikipedia policy on citations. Cease and desist or you will receive administrator action.--Screwball23 talk 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong answer. I am an administrator and I am responding to complaints from the subject by removing poorly cited or uncited contentious material. Guy (Help!) 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the ticket for the complaint source? Silverseren^C 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever. Hey, Screwball, here. Get to referencing! I'll be helping out. Silverseren^C 18:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise you to stop pushing him, he will block you. He really is in a good mood today, considering he hasn't already. He gave you the ticket complaint number, which means that there was a complaint, so there's nothing you can do. Just focus on referencing what is there and we'll see about the rest later. It'll always be in the history of the page, regardless, if you need it again. Silverseren^C 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do work extremely hard on election articles. Thanks. Unless if an election article is very prominent and has a lot of information, only one or two lead paragraphs are necessary. In the case of this election, the primaries haven't even started yet. So the best thing to do is to have one paragraph, simply saying how the incumbent, Chris Dodd, isn't running and how McMahon/Blumenthal are the front runners.

On another note, I'm really confused...Do you understand how the nominating system works in Connecticut?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey again. I just wanted to let you know that I'm tying to make the election article as less confusing as possible, which is why I seperated convention and primary candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm getting a little frustrated with you. I don't care so much about whether or not Linda McMahon is the nominee. What I'm getting angry about is the candidate sections. How do people suppose to know who was on the convention ballot and who was on the primary ballot? You keep reverting what I do... and people including myself get confused about what's going on. For example, some candidates didn't get into the primary because they didn't perform well enough in the convention. I don't understand your way of thinking. Why in the world do you oppose seperating the candidates section between primary and convention?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I understand that Blumenthal is the nominee.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add all those people to the infobox. The infobox is only for the official party nominee. As of now, there is no official Republican nominee. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've been talking about somewhat different things, which has made for some confusion. The article text can mention that McMahon has the party support. But that infobox at the top of the page is only for official party nominees. The party, simply, does not yet have a nominee as of yet. Maybe the best way, if you feel it's unfair to show Blumenthal in that box and no Republican, is just to take it down until the Republican primary happens. --Muboshgu (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Schiff supporter. Quite the contrary, I've noticed that you are clearly a McMahon supporter adding bias into the article. The "rule" that you're referring to about only nominees going in the infobox should be clear in that the line you input on is labeled "nominee", which McMahon is not, unless she indeed wins the primary, which won't happen until August. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catch this bit of news yet? That is why Linda McMahon should not have been considered a "presumptive" nominee. As Yogi Berra once said, "it ain't over till it's over". --Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule, reverting over three times in one 24 hour period. Attempts were made to discuss the issue with you, none of the other editors have breached 3RR - yet multiple users have reverted you and you continued to war with them. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I have made comments on the talk page along with others.--Steam Iron 04:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball, I strongly recommend that you drop this. You claim that you have been calmly discussing matters in effect, but your conduct is bordering of fixated and you are upsetting other editors with this. You have been asked to provide more sources given that you state that there are many articles and reports in your support and you have failed to do so. The sources you have provided are not enough. I can see you being banned again if you persist on your current line as it seems that you are refusing to listen. Your claim that there's a gang after you is only happening because you are the threat to the article and not them. Not because you are right or wrong, but because you insist that you are right and you won't listen when it is proven you are wrong.

Please. Just drop it. Or answer Justa Punk's challenge and provide the two dozen sources. If there are as many articles and reports as you claim this should be a simple task. If you don't, you will never get your way and unless you want to suffer a long term ban you must drop this. Just some friendly advice. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop splitting the posts. There is one topic under discussion; does the tempering of the recent (in the last 18 months) WWE product constitute a new "era" (that is a distinct from the WWE Universe "era"). As all you are doing is arguing in circles and claiming that other editors are not listening whilst not listening yourself or providing any references to back up your assertion you may find the patience of other editors tested to the point of an ANI report and a topic ban. If you want to make progress offer references to back up your edit, otherwise move on. And don't call me names in an edit summary, your attempt to split the section have been reverted twice. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on World Wrestling Entertainment. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. For the record 4:24 21 June 2010 version reverted to, 5:36 21 June 2020 1RR, 17:55 21 June 2010 2RR. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And here is the 3RR report. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it up... I mean you've done it before... btw I don't know where or how you see this as a personal issue. Believe me when I personally say it's NOT a personal issue. It's a WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:RS issue. Also why you think Justa Punk has gone nuts is beyond me. Perhaps its your way of fluffing up the issue for the users you keep canvassing... Hmm. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person who has to bolden his complaints, lose his temper, and give lectures on "how wikipedia works" while giving arbitrary commands on 24 refs is not completely healthy. His refusal to join mediation with an impartial moderator is another indication that something is up. --Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person who has to ask around for multiple admins and different forums is actually the leading indication that someone's panicking. Additionally, RFM is impossible for disputes with multiple parties involved - another indication the someone still doesn't know how wikipedia works... Happy canvassing! ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. You didn't have the balls to join the mediation and now you want to criticize me for getting third party opinions? I think you know how wikipedia works so well that you are afraid of losing. --Screwball23 talk 17:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch yourself with the Personal Attacks (yet another indication that someone's panicking) or you might find yourself on the wrong end of another block. Finally, as I am sure you were told by another admin, RFM's are not for disputes involving multiple parties... and yet you still don't get it. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 18:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop forum shopping; 3O, editor assistance, RFC and mediation is three steps too far. No matter how many people you canvas it will not change the basic fact that the text you want to insert is not up to standards. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What standards? You keep mentioning the links to Bleacher report, but the others are perfectly legitimate. I know you are full of it, and your refusal to join mediation has made it clear that you don't want to solve this productively. I spoke with Wasted Time because he has undoubtedly dealt with some creepy and obsessive editors before.--Screwball23 talk 21:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Thank you very much for the barnstar and the kind words. I hope that they are not premature and that we can all find a way forward together. — e. ripley\^talk 19:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning World Wrestling Entertainment, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 17:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

You are editing against consensus. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about ? The consensus was never established. The discussion has continued, and I am finally talking with an individual who read my references and is willing to talk about the material. The discussion before was just a bunch of emotionally unstable blabber that completely avoided the facts. Please read the talk page and join the discussion on the newest thread.--Screwball23 talk 04:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, STOP canvassing. Begging people to read, and re-read, and re-re-read your argument isn't going to help your case, neither is accusing others of biases simply because they don't agree with you. Stop edit warring. ^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 07:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. !! Justa Punk !! 12:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

Thanks for uploading File:LindaMcMahon_web_ad.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:LindaMcMahon web ad.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, generally the nominator does not cast an additional bolded !vote at AFD discussions. If you feel that there is more you need to say, you may preface it with a bold "comment", or just simply say it. Regards, Jujutacular ^talk 02:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

Feel free to take over rest of review/promotion/etc as GA Reviewer. No worries, and thank you! Yours, -- Cirt (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Codex Vaticanus/GA2

I fixed your previous edits. You still need to do the rest of the "pass" steps, laid out at WP:GAN. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right it is not very important information for the lead. Number of leaves is mentioned in section "Description". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Linda McMahon article is ready to be a good article nomination. I can give it a pre-review if you'd like. Nikki♥311 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a recent edit, you expressed regret at deleting someone's addition to the external links section, feeling it was likely his first edit. There's no need to feel sorry - that IP has been doing a lot of edits, and what a coincidence - they all seem to be adding external links to commentaries by the same author! --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Literature you are listed as the reviewer for Codex Vaticanus. The review has been open for several weeks and it appears that work has stalled. Can this review be completed soon? Or is more time required? --maclean (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing this review right? It's had three reviewers stall out on it already, please finish it... Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have abandoned tthis review, please have the courtesy to say so on the review page. Otherwise please finish it now. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Screwball, could you better help me understand your position on the McMahon article? I don't see the relevance of a pre-1993 (when she assumed control) trial of a company doctor, especially when the article is about Ms. McMahon herself, not the company. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, however. What do you feel this adds to our understanding of Linda herself? Thanks. Fell Gleaming^talk 15:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must note you've made 3 reversions to this article within 24 hours. In case you're not familiar with the the Wikipedia three-revert rule, you may want to read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FellGleaming (talk • contribs) 23:47 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just noticed the battle going on over this article. It's not my fight, but I thought I'd just mention to you it's my cursory impression that Fell Gleaming is beyond 3RR at this point on the article. You might want to be careful yourself, btw; I think - again from a very cursory look - that you might be at 2RR, at least. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My experience engaging in and watching editorial disagreements has lead me to believe that accusing the opposition of improper motives only hurts your case, even when - no, especially when - the accusation is accurate. You're not telling the opponent anything they didn't know, and you're not looking to the undecided like you're working from a calm and reasoned position. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes a lot of sense. You're telling me my accusations are accurate, but you still want to revert me because I don't know how to play an editorial disagreement? This is a very black day for wikipedia. :-(--Screwball23 talk 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm reverting your mass-reversion because in doing it, you reverted even things that you had agreed to, such as reintroducing much of the ringboy material. I didn't have time at the moment to sort out all of what should be restored and what should not. And no, I was not telling you that your accusations were accurate. I was saying that believing you're telling the truth - even telling the truth - does not make it an effective strategy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nat's right in his first assertion here, SB. And he wasn't attacking you, either. On the contrary, he was offering valuable and helpful advice. Telling your interlocuter he's biased isn't any kind of effective strategy at all, because no one really thinks of themselves as biased and they just take offense. It antagonizes the person, and regardless of whether the accusation has any truth to it or not, it doesn't generally impress onlookers, either, who always decide such things for themselves. I know you're very invested in this article, but he's right in saying that calm, reasoned disputation is much more likely to have the effect you want, both on the person you're disputing with, and with respect to observers, as well. None of this is meant as any reflection on reverts or on content, btw. I'm not familiar enough with the history here, or with who agreed to what, to offer any opinon on that.  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR as you have now made 3 straight reverts on Linda McMahon and 8 in only four days. Consider this a warning about edit war behaviour on that article. Collect (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi your being reverted by multiple editors, perhaps more discussion is the answer. Off2riorob (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mcmahon ring.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI , you are edit warring on the Linda McMahon article, please stop. Off2riorob (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. In this edit, you restored material allegedly supported by a citation where the citation did not support that assertion. BLP material must be explicitly mentioned in the citation, and this is clearly not. Failure to exercise more caution in the future will result in your being blocked. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a solution to the polling problems!!! Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to the polling, new compromise section.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Linda McMahon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Let me give you some advice, both as an Arbitration Committee clerk and an editor who has been around for a couple years. There is zero chance that ArbCom will accept this dispute as currently filed. There is no evidence of prior dispute resolution besides communication processes. Generally for this type of thing to progress to ArbCom, at the very least, Deletion Review and a User Request for Comment should have been tried. I suggest that you withdraw your request, speak with a more experienced Wikipedian that you trust to give you good advice, and then pursue Dispute Resolution as suggested on that page. NW (Talk) 01:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have removed your case request per the direction of the arbitrators. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. NW (Talk) 13:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you give me an overview and an update in regards to the dispute with FellGleaming? I'm trying to track the problem down and I'm looking for your opinion on the subject. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Screwball23 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

please help me man im new to wikipedia and some guy is bullying me its about the goldberg article please refer to the talk page i know you are a goldberg lover and i know you hate to see him get dissed(especially not by some ip editor)

now some guy called Qwyrxian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Qwyrxian keeps insisting im a racist just cause i called someone a malaysian im telling him im not but they keep saying its indisputable and...

as for the ip editor heres a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:175.144.73.197

he called a xenophobic racist but i only called him ignorant coz he is not looking in the link you put on the talk page to PROVE that goldbergs streak is not KAYFABE i know its not fake coz wcw saturday and some hidden matches like goldberg vs sandman and matches like dark matches were on the down low matches but they still count right?

look up on youtube for the sandman match it was brutal and there was some blood but it was like superman vs singapore can wielding man you gotta see it

i hope you will help and also please request semi protection on the article and please teach me how to do "wikipedia stuff" please coach me TraviaNightmare (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Screwball. This is in reply to your post to my talk page. Normally I like to keep talk-page discussions on the page where they begin, but I infer from your talk page that you probably don't follow that convention and that you might not have "watchlisted" my talk page, to make sure of seeing my reply. Thus my reply here. If you choose to respond you can do so right here, on your own talk page; I'll keep this page watchlisted for a while to make sure I don't miss any reply.

I think you need to be very careful to avoid any appearance of canvassing. Your post to my talk page probably doesn't strictly qualify as such, since I've demonstrated some interest in the article, but it's very close. I really don't have a lot to say beyond this; the behavior on all sides has been pretty unfortunate, imo.

There was a non-WP matter that I thought you might appreciate having some info about, however, regarding one of your interests. I wanted to e-mail you about that, but I notice you don't have that function enabled. So if you're interested, feel free to e-mail a quick "ping" to my all-lowercase, all-one-word Wikipedia user name at gmail dawt youknowwhat. ( I'm trying to keep the the evil spam bots away, of course. ) If you have only a personally-identifying e-mail account, feel free to create a generic "throwaway" account at gmail or yahoo, or wherever; it's probably wisest not to disclose one's name or other personally-identifying information to a stranger online, even in e-mail.

I have been and continue to be on something of a wikibreak just now, btw, so I might not get back to you very promptly if you post here, fyi. Btw, you know you're allowed to delete or archive your talk page messages, just as you prefer, right? There's an awful lot of old stuff here that makes navigating the page a bit more cumbersome than necessary. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your editing has been mentioned in a thread at ANI here, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your recent behavior, including both personal attacks and edit warring, is unacceptable. You have been blocked three times for edit warring and warned many, many times. Please use these two weeks to think about how to be more civil to others and how to achieve consensus through discussion with other users. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i'm new, but just wanted to say you can't go around doing bad stuff on wikipedia. it's bad. so remove it or lose it (yo account). behave now, cuz you gotta Tanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Phone Man (talk • contribs) 21:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Linda McMahon, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Hi, Screwball. I've made it clear on other pages that I disapprove very strongly of the behavior that you were blocked for, so I won't comment further on that here. And although the ANI thread in which you were blocked has now rolled off to archives, I feel obligated to tell you that there is a related discussion ongoing on the talk page of the admin who blocked you, King of Hearts. Two admins and one user have asked me to provide diffs to support my opinion that you weren't the only one edit-warring over the McMahon articles. I've not taken the time and trouble to do so because I think it's very obvious from just the two articles' revision histories, and also (to speak frankly) because I'm very tired of dealing with the problem. But since you weren't able to respond at all at ANI before you were blocked, you can present any evidence you might like to present here. I'd be willing to inform King of Hearts if you post here, so he could evaluate whatever you might wish to say.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Meetup Next: Saturday October 16th, Jefferson Market Library in Lower Manhattan Last: 05/22/2010 This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - BLPN thread - L McMahon - Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit warring the templates, please move to proper discussion and take this as a warning, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening to me. Communication here is a two-way street. The template was never justified. I am working 1,000 times harder than everyone else here. I not only researched and then built the section, I put the refs in, and now I'm being challenged because people don't want to read the refs. Instead, I have people claiming that the material is uncited. How does someone handle that? The fact of the matter is, the tipoff memo is factually accurate. Read about Wikipedia's policy on POV - no one has ever raised their so called "disputes" or "objections" to the section, so obviously there is nothing to discuss.--Screwball23 talk 02:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, you are over 3RR and under the circumstances that is very disappointing indeed, a thread was opened for discussion and still you revert. You are well enough experienced not to need warning about it. I am minded to report you immediately.Off2riorob (talk) 02:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion? I don't see anything. You should be ashamed of accusing uncited statements when I am offering clear references for you to read. That is closed-minded behavior.--Screwball23 talk 02:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. If you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, as you did at Linda McMahon, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been edit warring against multiple editors to include poorly sourced BLP material. Even if such material were properly sourced, it would violate WP:UNDUE. You have repeatedly reverted other editors without cause, when those editors were attempting to improve the NPOV of the article's wording. You are now (as if you weren't already) formally on notice that any future edit to this article which has the net effect--intended or not, revert or new material, today or some point in the future--of a BLP violation, broadly construed will result in your being blocked for such action. The sole defense against such future blocking will be demonstrated evidence that you have reached consensus for the edits on the article talk page. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolute bullying. You are a disgrace of a wikipedian, and I should report your garbage to an administrator. I put on well-researched info and that reference was there for the longest time. All of a sudden, editors who have misinterpretted the NPOV policies to remove anything that is factual just because it might not look good are taking aim at this page and want to delete like its going out of style...and instead of logical arguments, all I am encountering is a gang of people who have the worst bad faith of anything I've seen. How is it suddenly an issue that the Counterfeit Hero reference is used? It was always there, and the facts were always there. There is nothing wrong with the reference.

As far as your accusations of UNDUE weight, I know and you know that you are full of baloney. Her memo to Patterson was significant not only during the trial, but during her campaign. To say that it should be abbreviated is a disservice to readers, who will not be able to form an objective opinion of her actions simply because you decided you should take it upon yourself to "summarize" what happened instead of letting the quote stay. I had this argument with Collect and his gang before, and they never won the argument. You can't either, and since you're desperate, you are going to try and abuse wikipedia's blocking policy to scare me away. --Screwball23 talk 01:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to rant all you want, but the next time you place BLP-violating material (either directly, or by reverting someone else's removal) into the article, you will be blocked from editing. You don't appear to be understanding the entire point of the WP:BLP policy. I'd encourage you to read through the noticeboard and see what other sorts of problems come up and how they're handled, to get a better perspective on the topic. If you don't want to do that, I don't see how you can contribute positively to Wikipedia articles involving living people. One thing you don't appear to be getting is the spectrum of viewpoints represented in the variety of editors who have reverted you and/or told you that you are proceeding in a manner against consensus. While it's certainly possible for everyone in this corner of Wikipedia to be ganging up on you, it's far more likely that you're simply not understanding consensus. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of discussion at WP:WQA Collect (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball23, Thank you for the Barnstar. Iss246 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I copy edited the Malati Dasi entry today as part of the drive to work on the backlog. Of course, I would welcome your taking a look at the entry. Iss246 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for what you are doing with the lead of the above article at the moment. Right from the get-go I've had trouble with phrasing the thing - never done one before and even at the GA review neither I nor the reviewer were wonderfully happy with my attempts. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watching remarks elsewhere, and assuming good faith can I suggest you start and work up an article on Craven Brothers- a defunct company specialising in machine tools, so we can better appreciate your ideas this will show you the sort of mills and planers they made- yes big, very big. There would be some interesting analysis on why they went down in 19070 in spite of a rumoured full order book. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have the concept of consensus all wrong - the dispute process is after something is reverted, discuss. In other words, if there is a dispute (as there clearly is), you need consensus to add it, not remove it.

Also, the vandal tag was an accident; my apologies for that. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your rationale for removing it? It is abusive to delete something without rationale, and then use the hazy excuse of "no consensus". And for you to claim that there is no consensus for an edit just seconds after I posted it is absolute nonsense. Consensus, by definition, requires more than one person.--Screwball23 talk 18:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on dispute resolution, particularly this process - there is already consensus against that based on other rulings on the page. If you want to change that, cool, but do it the proper way rather than forcing it through. Toa Nidhiki05 18:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I have no rationale for your revert, what am I supposed to do? Come one, give me something to work with here. Is it something personal? Why are you so upset by my edits here?--Screwball23 talk 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue and have not been involved on that page - but there is consensus against edits like that on the page, and thus I reverted it. What is so difficult about going to the talk page and discussing it with other editors? The page is not subservient to your will alone. Toa Nidhiki05 18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Edits like that?" Like what? For a person who "has not been involved on that page", you seem to know a lot about its consensus. Can you even tell me what consensus you are talking about? Seriously, if you have no issue, what am I discussing here? I'm supposed to discuss an edit issue with a person who doesn't have an issue?--Screwball23 talk 18:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screwball, I am not involved - but that does not mean I have not been observing. The fact is, labels along the lines of 'absolute ruler' and 'absolute dictator' have been rejected many, many times by consensus - this also applies to future edits along the same lines. If you want to change consensus, start an RfC - otherwise, you need to follow the consensus that has been reached by your fellow editors.

You also appear to be taking this personally, when this is no personal issue - I reverted your edit that violates page consensus, and you seem quite angry and think I am out to get you or something.

I will reiterate - why can you not at least try and reach consensus with your fellow editors? You do not own the page. If you are not capable of doing something that simple, I honestly don't see why you are on a collaborative project. Toa Nidhiki05 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true and you know it. My edits regarding his Cult of personality were removed because of your claims of "consensus". Now, you are generalizing both that and his status as an absolute dictator, and trying to claim I'm forcing something against consensus without making it clear what you are talking about. I want you to see where I'm coming from - you are a person who claims to know consensus, and yet you have no issue, no reason to back up your reverts. I will tell you again to read Wikipedia: don't revert due to "no consensus" Check the talk page on Gaddafi, because I am discussing the facts there.--Screwball23 talk 18:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screw, please assume good faith and stop the personal attacks. Accusing me of lying is not assuming good faith. Once again, what is the issue with holding an RfC on something that is clearly disputed? You still haven't answered that question. Toa Nidhiki05 18:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is your dispute? Why can't you answer that question? You keep trying to point to some established consensus, saying that there's been a Wikipedia:PRIOR#Prior_discussion on this, and I have to tell you, I don't see any reason why a consistently-verified edit is being challenged by you.

I don't see any reason why you can't take this to an RfC and discuss it other than that you don't want to collaborate with others. Toa Nidhiki05 19:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith and stop the personal attacks--Screwball23 talk 20:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Just to let you know I have completed a copyedit on the Muammar Gaddafi article. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a new reply for you on my talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 07:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I realise that you may have been a little upset, but removing my post is definitely against policy Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments. The post did not attack you in anyway shape or form, and its removal was definitely not covered by WP:NPA.

Changing the article against already agreed consensus needs to find new consensus before changes to it are made. As you seem to think that you can simply remove talk page comments that you disagree with, and quote a policy that does not apply, I think it best that you reconsider and revert your removal. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC) PS I use the WikiChecker article count to see who are the main contributors to articles, perhaps it is innacurate?, nonetheless that is all we have to go on: Phase4 (36) Avanu (33) Jbower47 (31) AFarmer64 (22) Screwball23 (21) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I apologize for taking so long to reply to your comment on my talk page, and also for having said or done anything that might have caused offense or seemed to undermine the value of your contribution. Just so you know, I'm working on a thorough response to your comment (I'm planning to place it on article talk, if you wouldn't mind, because I feel that our concerns are relevant to the article and to its editors in general). My editing has been really sporadic lately, however, and I don't know exactly when I'll have a chance to post my reply (although I'll aim for sooner rather than later). So, in fairness to you, I will not even consider "re-reverting" (i.e., I will not deliberately again revert) any of your prior edits to the article until, at the very soonest, I have produced the rationale that you requested. Let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the DYK rules before nominating articles. Your nomination of Template talk:Did you know/Muammar Gaddafi was rejected because the article does not meet DYK's criteria. rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Screwball23! Thanks for writing! Technically, I didn't make the John Paul II map, but I made the blank world map that it and most other maps on Wikipedia (at least the SVG versions) are based on. I don't have much free time to work on it, never mind to do your request, but there are instructions both on the talk page of the file on Commons, and in the first few lines of the SVG code itself (open the file with a text reader like Notepad). Thanks also for the barnstar offer, but I basically set out to improve an existing map with my very limited SVG knowledge and donate the end result to Wikipedia to let other turn it into what it's become on the site. So my reward is seeing it used rather than praise (besides, I always maintain that the SVG wizards who created the original (like User:Brianski) that I just improved deserve far more praise and barnstars than I. --Canuckguy (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I am sorry to say, but that was not me who made the Libya map. I have no idea why my name was on it, but whatever. Besides that, I would be willing to do a quick map for you, I see nothing wrong with that. --NuclearVacuum (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the back-up. While I do a lot of polling edits, I'm not all against how you feel. But I suppose that a debate for another day. =) With that said, this is a encyclopedia, and as long as polls are included, they should at least be from a reliable source!! Thank you again! America69 (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg. Unfortunately, I think that you have not provided a proper rationale for using this image under "fair use". Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. Note that the image description page must include the exact name or a link to each article the image is used in and a separate rationale for each one. (If a link is used, automated processes may improperly add the related tag to the image. Please change the fair use template to refer to the exact name, if you see this warning.)

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up on the recent modifications to the Gaddafi article. It seems like several editors are getting fairly zealous with the recent news, and I tried to revert a little, but your work was much more thorough. -- Avanu (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GaddafionTimemagazine.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gaddafimoney.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 16:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fat&Happy (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit - do you see wrestler contracts in the reference? Do you have a different reference that says it? --GRuban (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to File:Saif al-Islam Gaddafi.jpg, without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Melesse (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Obamaarab_mccain2008.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at File:Obamaarab mccain2008.jpg, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Melesse (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly word of advice – please do not remove templates unless the problem has been fixed. Deletion templates must not be removed whilst the deletion is under consideration.

Re the image of Saif Gadaffi, I think that there may be an argument for its retention in the article on its subject. I've mentioned this at ANI and started a discussion on the talk page of the image. I not that you have already disputed the deletion of the image. You are welcome to put forward your views at the talk page, where you have much more room to state your case. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. - Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2012. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your conduct. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:Template:LogoCon|right|80px]] Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved: Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. Check the Recent changes for vandalism and violations of the neutral point of view policy. Add the project banner {{WikiProject Conservatism}} to conservatism-related articles, and assess them as well. Join fellow members in editing our project-wide article collaboration (the current one is Social norm). Cleanup some of the articles listed for cleanup. Check out the to do list and complete some of the tasks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! - – Lionel (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to conservatism. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Bob Turner9thcongressional.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its as I understand the correct position of policy anf guidelines that living public figures require a commons compatible picture - because its just so easy t get one - adding a non commons picture to the infobox of such a person stops people looking for what we want, a commons licensed picture. You could try (I do this sometimes) emailing the subject and letting him know about the article, provide a link to it, and ask him if he would be willing to contribute a picture for the article under a commons license. Off2riorob (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Housewatcher (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing you because you used my name in an edit summary and because I truly do not understand why you re-added the pic of Bob Turner.[4] It could be that you are unaware of discussion on my talk page, and Off2riorob's where I indicated I did not plan on restoring the pic to the article [5] [6] [7]. I believe you may be unaware of that discussion because I certainly did not know, at the time I did my single restoration of the pic, and at the time I asked Off2riorob about the policy, that you and Off2riorob had already discussed the removal of the pic on both your talk page and his.

Incivility aside, within his most recent remarks Off2riorob has now stated the not unreasonable view that "The fact that it has yet to be deleted is no excuse to keep it in the article". I am now thinking that perhaps the free use and deletion policies are unclear or silent on the matter of whether a tagged pic should be removed from articles pending a final determination--but that is another matter. I do believe, that for the moment, or at least in this instance, it is not unreasonable to think the answer is yes, challenged pic should be removed during that time period. So my suggestion is that you remove the pic, but you can do what you want, I have made only one reversion and I am not going to get involved at all in an edit war over an issue where essentially we all agree on the free use policy. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Screw, as it stands the pic is going to be deleted because he's still alive and we need permission. Sometimes you can find free pics on Flickr. Have you considered asking him for permission? It's easy. Check this out WP:COPYREQ. If you don't get a response before they delete it, not to worry--you just upload it again when you have permission. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt - Thanks for the advice. The odd thing is, both Screwball and I emailed the campaign for permission, and Screwball also said he would not be re-adding the pic-which is another reason why all of this should be a non-issue. See - User:Off2riorob#Bob Turner .28politician.29 It's not a bad picture either. Not too many people look that good at age 70. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently very busy. I have a lot of school work at the moment. Please sent me the country list, but I can't promise I can get it done and I can't promise it will be quick. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started a discussion about whether this should be in the article [8], and though hilarious, I don't think so. Please weigh in if you want. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings on this issue.--Screwball23 talk 18:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back from Wiki Project Terrorism! I'm Katarighe, a Wikipedian member since 2009. I'm currently the successor of Sherurcij in September because, he has not edited Wikipedia using this account for a considerable amount of time since May 2010. We are trying to renovate the new WP page this fall 2011 and we look forward this month whats next. If you are interested, start the renovation with us and new awards on contributing terrorism are coming soon. The WP terrorism newsletter begins January 2012. See you on October for the updates on WP terrorism. I will send this message next month about the updates. Good Luck.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Terrorism at 22:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Screw! I just wanted to stop by and mention a few things. First, wondering what's going on with McMahon? That article is ready for WP:GAN. Don't you want a star on your userpage?

Second I've noticed you're having some difficulty with your uploads. I have a decent grasp of free/non-free and would be happy to give you some tips on preventing deletions. Also I just created the Commons branch of WikiProject Conservatism. It's just getting off the ground. Check it out here: [9].

You seem to be a magnet for conflict (smile), if you feel like you're getting pushed around please drop a note on my talk. I'd be happy to act as a go-between. TTFN – Lionel ^(talk) 08:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Lionelt#thanks's talk page.[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on User_talk:Lionelt. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 00:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]