User talk:GaryColemanFan

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Thoughts

I was taking a look at the articles listed on the stub drive page. Looking at Curtis' articles, I noticed the ones that have been redirected have great potential. Wouldn't it be best to just leave the information in those articles instead of redirecting? I would undo, but thought to get your thoughts seeing as it was you idea before acting. Already undid his Brett DiBiase edit from eailer due to the delete discussion agreement.--WillC 10:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was planning on expanding those after I did the TNA games. They have plenty of info available just no one to expand them. I would understand more if each game had a section in the main article where the text was moved too. That would be best if they have to be redirected. Plus moving the templates and game boxes there as well. No reason to let those get deleted when they are still needed.--WillC 05:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well sometime tomorrow I'll take the info from the redirected ones and add it to the main article. Shouldn't be too hard. Hopefully down the road, I, or someone else, expands them to a higher class.--WillC 06:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Rafael Halperin

Hello! Your submission of Rafael Halperin at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Derick Neikirk

On December 23, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Derick Neikirk, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Cirt (talk) 11:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Rafael Halperin

On December 27, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rafael Halperin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wrestlemania 23

Ideas?--Curtis23 (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already proven my point.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to push a NPOV on Meltzer. By definition, I felt "unsubstantiated" best fit the claim as no other sources confirm it (as opposed to the recommendation that it be labeled as non-factual, which I found to be POV). I explained a bit further on the talk page, however at the end of the day this is just a hobby for all of us and no need to get all worked up over it. :) I actually think your suggestion will be the closest thing we get to a compromise. I was just offering my $0.02. HAZardousMATT^toxic 17:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

I read your note on WP:PW, and added some content to (Billy Sandow). I don't know if the additions are enough to de-stubbify it.208.120.153.110 (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added quite a bit to Danno O'Mahony, so you can knock it off your stubs list. 208.120.153.110 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean?--Curtis23 (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep reverting back to stubs that have 2 or 3 sentences?--Curtis23 (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you start a stub drive whenever you want?--Curtis23 (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: SpikeToronto

Hello, GaryColemanFan. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Derick Neikirk Baseball Heading

Thanks for fixing that heading! You wouldn’t think I’d ever read WP:HEAD, would you? I have this tendency to violate the rule on talk pages and since I rarely, if ever, add headings to article pages, I forgot. Thanks for catching it! — Spike Toronto 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Kay GAN review complete, article on hold for 7 days

Hello, this post is to inform you that the article you nominated on GAN, Bobby Kay, has been reviewed, and the article is on hold for seven days to allow for potential improvements. Cheers, Monowi (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am on vacation right now and not near he book, I will not be back home for a few days but as soon as I can look it up I will see what the book says specifically about Bobby Kay. MPJ-DK (50% Done) Talk 20:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I checked the book - not a huge amount of information on Bobby, like you said he was the youngest and least prolific of the brothers. Mainly talks about him teaming with his brother and being trained by them. I can give you some quotes or see if I can add/source something in the article. MPJ-DK (53,7% Done) Talk 13:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Learning the Ropes

On December 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Learning the Ropes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 19:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 90% done with only 226 articles remain to be swept! As always, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. With over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 4 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. As an added incentive, if we complete over 100 articles reviewed this month, I will donate $100 to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps participants. I hope that this incentive will help to increase our motivation for completing Sweeps while supporting Wikipedia in the process. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I see how you must feel after the whole issue, and understand if you are not interested in contributing to Sweeps any further. Although there are disagreements among members about how reviews are performed and how editors/projects are notified (I was really bad at it when I first started), I am for the most part pleased with how the majority of the reviews have gone. I already appreciate how much you have contributed, and if you are unable to review a few more, then no worries. Although I believe that Sweeps could go on further, I would like to see it completed soon as it has already dragged on too long. I hope that more reviewers each complete a few more reviews, and then we can all move on to ensuring that the GAN backlog is of a respectable length to encourage more people to contribute to both writing and reviewing. Whatever is not picked up in the few reviews will likely have to be reviewed by just a small fraction of the active reviewers who I think have already had to review too many. This process has been interesting, but I would not look forward to seeing it again anytime soon. Again, thank you for helping out. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lam Brook DYK

Thanks for looking at this. I have withdrawn the nomination as User:Rodw has pointed out that this fact has been covered in DYK before. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Linda McMahon

Hey there!

I have been involved with WP:Professional Wrestling for some time now, and the recent campaign of Linda McMahon has been a very exciting endeavor for me. I am adding to the article everyday, and I know your outstanding work on wrestler biographies makes you an excellent person to join the article.

Please feel free to add and contribute. I have been impressed by many of your professional wrestler biographies, and I would love any tips and/or feedback to the page.

--Screwball23 talk 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Billy Sandow

On January 7, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Billy Sandow, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Rudy Kay

The article Rudy Kay you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Rudy Kay/GA1 for things needing to be addressed. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've passed the article, congratulations. Mm40 (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Geri and Freki/GA1

Provided a quick second opinion. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stupid

Don't template the regulars. And certainly don't issue template vandalism warnings against long-standing users who have explained in great detail the policy basis for their actions on the article talk page. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idiot template for an iddiot

Please stop being a dick. If you continue to be a fuckwit, as you did at user talk:JzG you will be slapped with a large wet fish. Now never ever post a template warning on my talk page ever again, thanks all the same. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:JzG

I think we should write a request for comment on him as he is being disruptive an incivil. I don't think he deserves to be an admin I plan to get him desysopped.--C23 C23's talk 18:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck.

Just wanted to say that I agree with you RE:The Wrestlemania 23 Debacle. Unfortunately, most folks will read what they want to read and not what is actually written. Some of those folks have my contributions on their watchlist (they like to spy on me). To them I say, "Hi!" lol Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if any of this helps, but I found several other sources that list the attendance the same as Meltzer's figure. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] If nothing else, it shows that Meltzer is respected enough within the wrestling community that his analysis of the figures is considered to be accurate. I don't know if these can be used as the "secondary sources" that keep getting hounded on, but... I'm just trying to help. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 23:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (Lets see some links of reliable third-party sources to have published Meltzer's work) " However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (nope.... No one else but Meltzer)

"Similarly, some self-published sources may be acceptable if substantial independent evidence for their reliability is found. For instance, widespread citations without comment by other reputable sources" (nope can't see any of that anywhere in his reports) "...are a good indicator of reliability, while widespread doubts about accuracy weigh against the self-published source. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."

Now did you read that too or did you just stop at the part you thought agreed with you?^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 06:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mania 23

Since you've been more involved than me, what is the problem? I've lost track of what is going on.--WillC 08:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ?

Hey, thanks for the comment on the RFA. I am confused - I clearly stated on that specific ANI incident that the "fuckwit" comment was out of line - how does that translate to me condoning it? Thanks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that it was uncivil but then went on to condone it and joke about the incivility. In addition, your comment at RfA about simply stating a preference for how you would want it phrased on your talk page is an obvious lie, since you stated "[m]aybe he should have used" a different obscene term, not that "maybe if you posts a similar message on my page, he should use...". And if you believe or are even willing to hint, that you would see no problem with the term "fuckface" being applied in an argument, you shouldn't be on Wikipedia at all, let alone as an administrator. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence is a continuation from the sentence above it - you cannot remove it as the context changes, and you are wise to highlight that the meaning also changes, but then you're changing my intended meaning. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say what you want about your "intended meaning". The statement is right there in black and white, though. The second sentence is written in the past tense, clearly indicating that you are referring to how me may have been wise to change his actions in the past (ie. when attacking me). It seems to be a moot point, however, as 100 Wikipedians and counting don't care that you have no regard for WP:CIVIL. Looks like Wikipedia is on the verge of adding a member to the "Thanks for sharing your concern. According to policy, it is valid. I can cite an essay or humor piece that holds no true weight but that I feel overrides policy anyway, so I don't care about your concern. I'm an administrator! Did I mention I'm an administrator?" club. I can hardly wait... GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I'm not lecturing, and I'm certainly not discounting anything you're saying. You're right, it's in past tense. As you can see to the answer about that specific incident on the RFA, I was clearly telling the admin in question that if he wants to use the word "fuck" against someone, then do it on my talkpage instead - it is quite clearly there in, as you say, black and white. Your interpretation fails to WP:AGF. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Kay

Sorry it's taken me so long to get the lead out about the Bobby Kay article, I added 2 book sources to the article and I replaced the solie.org and wrestling-titles.com sources as I've never been able to get a GA of FL approved with those sources, I used the wrestling title history book, best source there is. So I hope it helps make the GA re-review a bit smoother than the original process. MPJ -DK 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February GA Sweeps update

Thanks to everyone's efforts to the GA Sweeps process, we are currently over 95% done with around 130 articles left to be swept! Currently there are over 50 members participating in Sweeps, that averages out to about 3 articles per person! If each member reviews an article once a week this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. At that point, awards will be handed out to reviewers. Per my message last month, although we did not review 100 articles last month, I still made a donation of $90 (we had 90 reviews completed/initiated) to Wikipedia Forever on behalf of all GA Sweeps reviewers. I would like to thank everyone's efforts for last month, and ask for additional effort this month so we can be finished. I know you have to be sick of seeing these updates (as well as Sweeps itself) by now, so please do consider reviewing a few articles if you haven't reviewed in a while. If you have any questions about reviews or Sweeps let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Yay for TFA! :) I have such a soft spot for Flocke, both the bear and the article, and it's still one of the best GAC experiences I've had to date. Thanks so much for the past help, and the kind words. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 13:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jos LeDuc

I don't know where to find the sources, but I know for a fact that LeDuc shaved Rougeau's head and burned Idol with a lit candle both on tv because I saw him do both on Southeastern Championship Wrestling. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps Completed!

Thanks to everyone's amazing efforts in February, we have reviewed all of the articles and are now finished with Sweeps! There are still about 30 articles currently on hold, and once those reviews are completed, I will send you a final message about Sweeps process stats including the total number of articles that were passed and failed. If you have one of these open reviews, be sure to update your count when the review is completed so I can compile the stats. You can except to receive your award for reviewing within the next week or two. Although the majority of the editors did not start Sweeps at the beginning in August 2007 (myself included), over 50 editors have all come together to complete a monumental task and improve many articles in the process. I commend you for sticking with this often challenging task and strengthening the integrity of the GA WikiProject as well as the GAs themselves. I invite you to take a break from reviewing (don't want you to burn out!) and then consider returning/starting to review GANs and/or contribute to GAR reviews. With your assistance, we can help bring the backlog down to a manageable level and help inspire more editors to improve articles to higher classes and consider reviewing themselves. Again, thank you for putting up with difficult reviews, unhappy editors, numerous spam messages from me, and taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Frazier

I have weighed in with my side of the Stan Frazier dispute on the original research board. I have also, on that page, commended you for your civility and professionalism. I think that you will see that I have a history of working through disputes cordially. I, as I'm sure, like you, am only interested in improving Wikipedia. You seem to have quite a knoweledge of wrestling, and I was hoping you might be able to help me with something whilst this dispute is being resolved. There was a dark match that took place at Wrestlemania III, and its participants escape me. Would you happen to know who they were, or possibly a source where I might find this information?Mk5384 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Derick Neikirk/GA1

On hold, hopefully you can get to it soon. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Derick Neikirk

That's fine. I've been very busy myself, and have gotten behind on reviewing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:PW post

When would you like to start?--WillC 09:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hill

I've reverted your edits again for the same reason as before. All the facts in that paragraph not only appear elsewhere on the John Hill page, they are also in the wikilinked pages in the paragraph. Since there is no additional information, no additional references are needed, unless you want to dispute the content of those other pages or sections. If you do, the place to do so is on the discussion page. --99.253.224.234 (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]