Jump to content

User talk:EdgarCabreraFariña

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 77.193.104.227 (talk) at 22:02, 1 November 2017 (→‎77: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome...

Hello, EdgarCabreraFariña, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.  Again, welcome! NiciVampireHeart 15:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Information icon Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Seth Rollins without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Amortias (T)(C) 19:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Do not add speculative storylining to SummerSlam (2012) without sources to back this material up thank you. 121.214.28.199 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Information icon Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! - 220 of Borg 04:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited "Mary Shelley (Doctor Who)", you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Storm Warning. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Seth Rollins and championship listing

Hello, I'm so sorry for replying only now, but I had some problems. Anyway, I don't remember much now, but yes, I did thank you for your edit, which I thought was helpful. I'm also so happy to hear that, I didn't know that just a "thank you" could do that, but I'm so glad to hear that, really. Talking about the Seth Rollins page, I actually don't know if I should talk about it here, but I wanted to talk about an edit I think would be helpful, in my opinion. I think that the championships won in the "Championships and accomplishments" section should be listed alphabetically and I thought that was already the criterion used since many other wrestler pages had the championship listed alphabetically, or at least I thought. Because I actually found out that the titles won in each promotion should be listed in order of importance. Honestly, though, I think it would be better to do it alphabetically, for two reasons:

  1. Sure, there're titles who are obviously more important than others (for example, the world title, the WWE World Heavyweight Championship will always be more important than the secondary title, the Interoontinental Championship, no matter what), but there're also many other titles that it's not easy at all to be listed as more important than others (for example, how can you say which is the more important and promient title between either two world titles, secondary titles, or world tag team titles when they're portrayed as equivalents?). How can you objectively say that, for example, the United States Championship is more important than the Intercontinental Championship? Sure, now, thanks to John Cena, the United States Championship has grow up so much as value, but how it will be in one or two years? Maybe in two years the Intercontinental Championship will look to be more important, then in five years the United States Championship will look the be more important again, et cetera. Also, in Rollins' page they're listed in order of importance by the following: the WWE World Heavyweight Championship, the United States Championship, and then the WWE Tag Team Championship, respectly. But why should the WWE Tag Team Championship be considered less important than the United States Championship? Sure, the United States Championship may be in fact more important for being a single, old, and historic title, but after all it's "just" a secondary title, while the WWE Tag Team Championship is a world championship category (tag team e.d.) title. As you can see, there're so different opinions and it's really hard to say which title is really more important than others, which is why I think it would fit better to list them alphabetically.
  2. The moves (finishing and trademark moves) are already listed alphabetically, so why not do the same for the championships won and the accomplishments conquered too? I would actually list alphabetically also ring names, the already listed alphabetically finishing and trademarks moves, plus managers, nicknames, and the said "Championships and accomplishments" section, while I would let only the entrance themes to be listed chronologically since there will must be listed the dates in which the themes were used by the wrestler.

So, what do you think about it? Do you agree with me or fo you think about it differently? Thanks for reading and let me know your thoughts. Thanks in advance for your reply.--Davide King (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry again for replying you only now, but I thank you so much for your reply, and also for your kindness. I'm so glad to hear that, and yeah, I just think that listing it alphabetically suits better an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, since by listening it in order of importance may not always be objective and there may be way more differents opinion. I understand, and I tried to list it alphabetically, but my edits got reverted.
Anyway, always about championship listing and such things, how would you list a championship that was won by the same wrestler with two differet names? Yeah, I'm mainly refering to all the wrestler who won the WWE's world title with both WWE Championship and WWE World Heavyweight Championship's names. For championships like the TNA Legends/Global/Television/King of the Mountain Championship I'm actually agree to use the "/", since they're totally different names, but for championships like the WWE and the ECW world titles (WWF World Heavyweight Championship became simply the WWF Championship, while then the WWE Championship became the WWE World Heavyweight Championship; meanwhile, the ECW World Heavyweight Championship, in the WWE's ECW (2006), first became the ECW World Championship and then simply the ECW Championship), where basically it only changes either the words "World" or "Heavyweight", or in some case both, it isn't bad to use the "()" instead of the "/"; so, instead to write the long "WWE Championship/WWE World Heavyweight Championship" or the "ECW World Heavyweight Championship/ECW Championship/ECW Championship", we could simply write "WWE (World Heavyweight) Championship" or "ECW World (Heavyweight) Championship". I saw first the "WWE (World Heavyweight) Championship" and I thought that it was actually ingenious, but now I see it isn't used as much as before, so I ask you: what do you think it's better? The pro of using the "()" is that it makes it way more shorter, but the con is that it may not be understandable at first; conversely, the pro of using the "/" is that it's always understandable, but sometimes it may get very long.
Said this, I also wanted to ask about certain championship's name; I'm talking in particular about the WWE World Heavyweight Championship and the Intercontinental Championship. What I wonder is when exactly then WWF World Heavyweight Championship became known simply as the WWF Championship, and on the other hand when then (WWF) Intercotinental Heavyweight Championship became simply known as (WWF) Intercontinental Championship, because there're different sources; Wikipedia, without any sources though, states that the WWF World Heavyweight Championship was known as such from December 26, 1983 to March 30, 1998 (ie Hogan's first reign and Stone Cold Steve Austin's first reign), but I also saw that other sources say that it became known as WWF Championship under the "Winged Eagle" championship belt or when Hogan's first reign came to an end and the vacant title was won by Randy Savage; while other sources state it became known as WWF Championship only on December 12, 2001, ie basically when Chris Jericho unifyed the WWF world title with the (WCW) world title and became the Undisputed WWF Champion. It should be noted that the "Winged Eagle" championship belt still had the word "Heavyweight", which was removed in the following championship belt, ie the "Big Eagle/Attitude Era" championship belt, which means it may be really true that the title became known simply as the WWF Championship only after WrestleMania XIV.
According to Wikipedia, the Intercontinental Championship became known simply as the (WWF) Intercontinental Championship on April 5, 1992, ie when Bret Hart defeated Roddy Piper at WrestleMania VIII. However, other sources state that the title became known simply as the Intercontinental Championship only in 1998, basically when The Rock was then Intercontinental Championship and had a new championship belt, which it should be noticed it didn't have the "Heavyweight" word aymore, so, like the WWF "Big Eagle" Championship belt, it may be true. There're also some sorces that don't consider the name (WWF) Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship and basically said that it was known as Intercontinental Championship since 1979. Always on Wikipedia, on the wrestlers' page who won the Intercontinental Championship when it was supposed to be still known as the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship it is written simply as the Intercontinental Championship; even on Pat Patterson's page it is written only as the Intercontinental Championship; it may be just a mistake, but if the title was initially really known as the Intercontinental Heavyweight Championship, then the wrestlers' page who won the title during that period should be listed as such.
What do you think about it? I wonder all this because I'm curious about it and I actually do care even about little details, which is why if I see written WCW United States Championship I correct it in WCW United States Heavyweight Championsip, because that was actually the official title name (it became known simply as the WCW United Championship when the WWF purchased the WCW in 2001, and then in 2003 was simply known as the (WWE) United States Championship). I actually also do wonder about the old World Tag Team Championship; when the WWWF became simply the WWF, was the title known as the WWF Tag Team Championship or as the WWF World Tag Team Championship?
I apologize for the long message, but I hope that you can read it all when you can and write me your thoughts when it's possibile to you. Thank you so much again.--Davide King (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need to say sorry and thanks to you, again! It's really nice talking to you. Wow, that's amazing, to hear that you thought the same, and I'm so happy that you got curious too. I'm not sure neither about the first point, I think both are correct, so it's just about whether you prefer to use the "/" or the "()". I knew it was announced as the "World Wrestling Federation Champion", but I thought that didn't excluded that the full name was still WWF World Heavyweight Championship, though you're probably right. I also did the same thing and I searched some videos too! So, in short, I think that you're right and that's probably the date more accurate and correct. Thank you so much for your reply.--Davide King (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you revert your recent edit? You are correct that 4th comes from WHW, it is clear that Cole/Sheamus/WWE all consider unanimously that a former World Heavyweight reign counts as a former WWE World Heavyweight reign too, just as a former WWE reign does. WWE does the same thing for Cena/Orton calling them 15/12 time WWE World Heavyweight Champions.

Even the Rock's "World Championship" reigns with the WCW title (albeit while owned by WWE) are counted, which is why Rock is called a 10-time WWE World Heavyweight Championship.

Your edit removed references from the page, you erased evidence, why would you do that? If you are right then you should explain the evidence in some other way. You should supply a more reliable source for there being only 3 reigns for Sheamus and then mention he is referring to as being 4-time WWE World Heavyweight Champion, and who calls him only a 3-time one. So far 3-time is WP:OR because no source is listed next to it. 174.92.132.81 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shield page vandalized again.

Same IP user has vandalized The Shield (professional wrestling) yet again.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re

Thanks for the notice about New wade on Bound for Glory (2016). I'm not sure what to do here. Whether we put an extended-confirmed protection on the page (New wade is not extendedconfirmed), bring this up to WP:INCIDENT, or get advice from the WikiProject Professional wrestling community, something should be done. I've placed an edit war tag on his talk page, and we'll see what comes from that. Thanks for the notice! JTP (talkcontribs) 00:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, EdgarCabreraFariña. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMia crash

G'day from Oz; the other day you thanked me for an edit to LaMia Flight 2933 in which I translated some comments into English. I now need some help; I have been using machine translation to add translations of the Spanish- and Portuguese-language sources in the article and I am at the stage where there are just two sources left in the article without translated titles. However I think the machine translation for these two is not useable and am hoping you can provide something better. The two are: "UEFA Champions League - Barcelona-Mönchengladbach - Mero trámite entre el Barcelona y el Gladbach" and "La aerolínea tuvo que acudir hasta a féretros prestados". Thanks in advance and cheers YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the above, what is a pre-match pitazo? Cheers again YSSYguy (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of deletion notice

[1]

Not sure why you removed the deletion notice, but the deletion discussion is still ongoing.

Please leave it up there, until it is removed and closed by an administrator.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Yulín Cruz

I like YOUR text about 'unity of command' (which was totally replaced). Could some 'synthesis' be developed which might be an improvement over both versions of the text? MaynardClark (talk) 06:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Calderoni

Hello, thanks for writing this article! I'm concerned that this article has no inline citations, meaning it's hard to understand where the information came from and to verify it. Any chance you could specify which source you used where? Thanks. Blythwood (talk) 18:24, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

77

Hello again,

If I may write here, I apologize for the misunderstanding with info about the pavement. My question and misunderstanding was probably not well formulated — as I am not a native speaker — and I did not imagine this would be considered as insulting. Anyway, I just read WP:SOAPBOX as suggested.

Regards. 77