User talk:Feedback

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User:Feedback)
Jump to: navigation, search


MY USER AND TALK PAGE


Welcome to my Talk Page!

If you wish to send me a message please deliver it after reading the following guidelines:
  • Make sure I'm the person you want to talk to. If you want to discuss a post of mine elsewhere on Wikipedia, make sure its me. Feedback is my signature.
  • If I write on your talk page, be polite and answer there. Don't worry, your page is on my watchlist, I'll see your posts.
  • If you write me here, I will answer you here. Please watch my talk page because I won't usually post a {{talkback}} on your page.
Go ahead now, post!
Wikipedia:Babel
Flag of Puerto Rico.svg This user is a Puerto Rican.
en This user is a native speaker of English.
es Este usuario tiene el español como lengua materna.
Search user languages

Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico

Qxz-ad59.gif

Infobox

06:57 UTC
Thursday, 28 August
Feedback
User
This is me
Name: Feedback
Gender: male
Birth date: July 7
Location: San Juan, Puerto Rico

My World

United States flag Puerto Rico flag New York flag Italy flag

Comments


Yearly WWE seasons[edit]

So Feedback, I linked you when I brung up the topic again, but not sure if you saw it with the quick archive period that was on the page. Seeing as you were the most enthusiastic about this idea, would you be willing to start up an article? I would gladly help you in any way needed. STATic message me! 02:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it was archived without me being able to chime in and without the conversation reaching a solid consensus is what made me extend the archive to 21 days. Of course I was the most enthusiastic, but that's because I came up with it lol. I'm in my first year of Med School though. When I wrote the idea, I had completely underestimated how busy I would be. I wish I could, but I don't see myself starting an article any time soon. Maybe I'll have some free time in the Spring (or so I hope). Feedback 02:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
I had a feeling that is what had happened. And I know, I had actually thought of the same idea recently when you posted it, that's why I attempted to bring it back up. That is really cool though, good luck with all that, I am sure you will be reaping the rewards in a few years and all the hard work will be worth it. Just if you ever do get the time to (since I do not see anyone else besides us two really interested into putting the ground work into this), do not be afraid to drop a message my way, I would be more than happy to help out. STATic message me! 07:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

True Detective AfD[edit]

Sorry dude, this AfD is uncalled for and looks like a deliberate end-run around the failed move request consensus that was determined earlier this month. If you persist, such "moving the battlefield" from one process to another could get you a brief block, I've already notified the admin who move protected the pages and cleaned up the mess from the failed move request b.s.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your accusation is baseless and uncalled for. As you can see from my contributions, I've never even set foot at True Detective (TV series) before today. I did not see the move discussion, but be that as it may, it is hardly relevant to the discussion I'm bringing forward. My argument is about getting rid of the unnecessary disambiguation page. If the consensus is to turn True Detective into a redirect, then so be it. I care very little about renaming the article as long as people are able to access it without the silly dab. Feedback 00:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard[edit]

Someone suggested at the Village Pump that I boldly create Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, a noticeboard to discuss articles about organizations that may be subject to non-neutral editing. Basically it's the corporate version of BLPN, where both adverts and attack pages can be brought to the community for broader scrutiny. Except this board does not currently relate to a specific policy like BLPN does, except NPOV, V, etc. (though it could refer to this essay I wrote or something). You participated in the prior village pump discussion that led to consensus for Template:COI editnotice, which is now widely used. Although this noticeboard is not COI-related, I thought you might have an interest in this as well, in whether the noticeboard should be kept and/or in participating in it generally. CorporateM (Talk) 18:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Money in the Bank (2011) peer review[edit]

Hi Feedback, due to your experience in editing professional wrestling related articles (and other experience for GAs), I'd like to invite you to comment on the peer review for Money in the Bank (2011), which I have an interest to eventually push for Featured Article status. Thank you very much. starship.paint ~ regal 15:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

List of champions consensus[edit]

From what I've been told, the changes I made to List of WWE World Heavyweight Champions and other various WWE lists was the consensus. See here. I just got around to correcting them a couple weeks ago. Maybe it needs to be discussed again. Prefall 23:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

"Previous discussions" is very vague. I need to see this consensus as its not clear on which article talk page this occurred on. I for one am strongly opposed to the idea that WWE doesn't have control over its own title history. "Who is champion" is very subjective. If WWE doesn't have the final say, then we might as well start listing the countless other people who've had their wins reversed like The Miz, Daniel Bryan and Chris Jericho. You might as well tell the people at WP:CYCLING to remove the strikeouts from Armstrong's Tour de France wins. Feedback 05:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wrestlinglover isn't around to answer these queries. I don't really stand for either side of the debate, but there are indeed holes in the WP:INUNIVERSE argument as you've pointed out. Regardless, starting up a new discussion on this topic wouldn't hurt.
Anyway, you wouldn't be opposed to me resubmitting my revision sans the changes to the title history, would you? Most of my changes were getting it in line with the style guide. Prefall 05:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. I really didn't notice the subtle differences in markup (alignments, and #->No.) as my attention was focused on the title history. I have no qualms for you to reimplement those changes, but I think we should keep the Inoki and Backlund reigns unofficial until a consensus is achieved. Feedback 05:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the issue here?--WillC 08:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

He says you spear-headed a consensus for WWE to not control their title history. I think that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard, so I want to know where this consensus took place. Feedback 02:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't spearhead anything. It is just WP:IN-U. We post what the facts are not what someone says the facts are. WWE can say whatever they want and that is noted, but the actual history is the one posted.--WillC 09:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
"Actual history" is subjective. Superman died. But it was revealed months later that he was actually hibernating. Are you going to say that Superman is dead, the following issues don't matter, and that DC doesn't have control over what happened? They can say whatever they want, and whatever they want is true, because they control the narrative. If WWE has The Rockers win the tag titles and then decide it never happened because the ropes were loose, then that's the end of discussion. They control the narrative of their characters' fictional history. Antonio Inoki did not beat Bob for the WWF title. Daniel Bryan did not beat Mark Henry for the World title. They only appeared to have won. It was reversed. They retconned it. Featuring them as unofficial reigns in the table is more than enough, but we can't just make believe that we have the authority to call them official. Only the writers have control over what happened in their fictional stories. Jack Veneno beat Flair for the NWA title, and just gave it back without ever being acknowledged. The fact that the switch appeared to happen doesn't make it official. It's just a plot hole-- The encyclopedic thing to do is to acknowledge the plot hole, but not to make believe the consequences that it entails are part of the canon. Feedback 11:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you have no idea that situations like those are already considered and that by In universe I am not saying that the mere fact a switch happens makes it official. An official reign is one that is recognized but later ignored completely. The issues you bring up were part of the storyline and then changed. Reigns like Kurt Angle winning the TNA Title and then stripped of the title are official since the company officially recognized the reign and later chose to say it never happened. These are situations of in universe where a company is trying to change history. As for Death of Superman arc, yes Superman died. Even DC says he died but was changed later to bring him back. That is the whole point of comics. The history is interchangable.--WillC 21:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

If comics or WWE had a beginning, middle and end as say, a film or a book, you would be looking at them differently. If a character seems to have died in Chapter 1, but returns at the end of the book, the character didn't die. If you say he did, then you're being foolish. He appeared to die, but it was later changed. The author's intentions are inconsequential to the facts. It doesn't matter if the author was hoping to keep him dead but then changed his mind when writing the last chapter. The important thing is what is canon. Wrestling and comics are like two continuous books where you read a different chapter every week. Antonio Inoki seems to have won the title in one chapter, and then it turns out he didn't. The fact that there's no explanation as to why it doesn't count is irrelevant. That's a plot hole, but it's still canon. It's no different than Batman turning out to be alive after jumping in a helicopter and blowing up in a nuclear explosion. There's no explanation, in fact it doesn't even make any sense, but that's what happened. Inoki appeared to be champ until it turned out he never was. Feedback 21:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Catelyn Stark died in A Song of Ice and Fire but comes back. So no, not all situations are black and white.--WillC 18:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That is pretty black-and-white as it gets. She actually died, and was later revived. Similar to how Daniel Bryan actually won the title, but was later stripped. Both those situations are completely different to say, Superman and Antonio Inoki. Superman appeared to have died... but was revealed to be alive. Antonio Inoki appeared to have won the title... but was later revealed to have not won. The real life connotations are that the death and title win were merely retroactively reversed by the writers at a later date, but the fact is, the owners of the canon are the ones who decide what's canon. Feedback 19:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject REHAB[edit]

Hi Feed, I saw that you were willing to help get Rehab up and running again. If you could help out by finding other willing editors and preferably some admins that would be great. Thanks, Mirror Freak 12:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

What exactly can I tell them? There's no point in recruiting a lot of people without telling them what we're going to do. Feedback 16:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You could tell them that need to be experienced editors who are willing to mentor past vandals. They need to be strict though, because we can't allow the vandals to think that they can just go through the program and vandalize again. Thanks, Mirror Freak 20:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Re[edit]

Hola. Si, creo que ya me dijiste hace un tiempo. Suelo escribir muchas veces muy rápido y no me fijo en si se me escapa una r en un mal sitio. No me importa demasiado, como tengo el auto log in, ni me doy cuenta. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)