Talk:Nashville Municipal Auditorium

This is the talk page for discussing changes to the Nashville Municipal Auditorium article.
Please sign your comments using four tildes (`~~~~`). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them `==A Descriptive Header==`. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice.

Wrestling shows

The wrestling show information should stay. Holding 3 of them, which at the time were WCW's largest and most historic shows, is relevant.

TruthCrusader 16:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Agreed. I second this suggestion. --Zpb52 16:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - I will continue to revert this article to show the wrestling events. ONE sockpuppet's opinion does NOT count when the consensus is to KEEP the info.

TruthCrusader 15:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

March 15, 2006

The edits User:Chadbryant is making are legitimate. Another user came in with the help of a bot and resorted the categories. The version Chad is reverting to is correct. Also, I think it is probably in the best interest not to include the section about the WWE coming to NMA for a 2006 SmackDown show. That is probably not notable, but it looks like Chad now agrees that the WCW PPV information should stay, because those are notable. Any disagreements? --Zpb52 21:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at The edits User:Chadbryant is making are legitimate. His history of contributions notes many, many instances where he made edits and tried to claim them as legitimate by misusing the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism" or "harrassment" to suit his own purposes. Then there's the multiple amounts of unwanted, unnecessary, unneeded, and unsubstantiated sockpuppet tags he has placed on Wikipedia almost since first signing up with the site. To say a phrase like "The edits Chadbryant is making are legitimate" is akin to saying "The people Saddam Hussein ordered killed were going to die sooner or later anyway." And yes, that's a bit of an extreme metaphor, but really -- I could list the reasons why I used SH rather than say, Joan Rivers or Ghandi. But if I did, I'd be in violation of policy on both personal attack and civility...and possibly a few others, some of them obscure. So I won't explain why. Let's just say there's a good reason and leave it at that. --FARVA 03:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]